
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CORTES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 23, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 11, 2002.
    
      Robert L. Flax, Flax & Stout, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Gregg R. Nivala, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Cortes appeals the district court’s judgment imposing on him numerous eighteen-month sentences to be served concurrently following his jury convictions for five counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West 2000), four counts of mail fraud on a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West 2000), thirteen counts of forgery of an endorsement on treasury checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 510 (West 2000), and four counts of theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 (West 2000). Cortes argues that the district court impermissibly commented on the evidence and the verdict was not based upon sufficient evidence. He also challenges his sentencing, claiming that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice and for engaging in more than minimal planning in the perpetration of his crimes, and failing to reduce his sentence for family responsibilities. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Cortes’ conviction and sentence.

Cortes argues that the court’s comments during trial were prejudicial. The record, however, discloses that the court properly interrupted once to make a helpful suggestion to the defense and a second time to make a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, neither of which was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir.1983) (providing standard).

Cortes also attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We have reviewed the record, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find sufficient evidence to support Cortes’ convictions. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

Regarding Cortes’ claim that he was improperly sentenced, we have considered his sentence under the guidelines and find no error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  