Case: 12-13806 Date Filed: 01/22/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 12-13806 _____________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00018-WS-N-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, versus MELISSA COLLINS GULLEDGE, Defendant – Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (January 22, 2014) Before HILL and COX, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLEBROOKS, ∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: ∗ Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.  Case: 12-13806 Date Filed: 01/22/2014 Page: 2 of 3 Appellant Melissa Gulledge and her brother were charged in a twenty-eight count superseding indictment in 2011, involving an equity-skimming mortgage fraud scheme during the real estate boom along Alabama=s Gulf Coast. In 2007, the real estate boom went bust and the scheme unraveled. Gulledge was charged with fifteen counts: one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. ' 1349; two counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. '' 1343 and 2; four counts of false loan applications under 18 U.S.C. '' 1014 and 2; and, eight counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 2. After a five-day jury trial in December 2011, Gulledge was convicted of all fifteen counts. The district court denied her motions for judgment of acquittal. In this appeal, Gulledge claims there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the jury=s guilty verdicts on all counts. Having reviewed the record and considered oral argument of the parties, we affirm the district court in all respects related to this appeal in denying Gulledge=s motions for judgment of acquittal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the United States, there is substantial evidence of Gulledge=s guilt, established through testimonial, stipulated, and documentary evidence. The jury verdicts stand as rendered. 2  Case: 12-13806 Date Filed: 01/22/2014 Page: 3 of 3 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3