UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-4870

CLAYTON MASSENBURG,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-97-111)

Submitted: November 30, 1998

Decided: December 31, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Edwin Walker, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen
F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Noelle M. Dalrymple, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Appellant Clayton Massenburg guilty of conspiracy
to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 846 (1994); posses-
sion with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841
(West 1994 & Supp. 1998); and possession of a firearm and ammuni-
tion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)-(2) (1994). Finding no
error, we affirm.

Massenburg claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions. In support of this claim, Massenburg attacks the credibil-
ity of the witnesses who testified against him and the sufficiency of
their testimony. This court reviews sufficiency of the evidence chal-
lenges by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could find the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In reviewing the suffi-
ciency of the evidence, this court does not weigh the evidence or con-
sider the credibility of witnesses. See United States v. Arrington, 719
F.2d 701, 704 (4th Cir. 1983).

The record is replete with evidence in support of Massenburg's
convictions. The testimony of several witnesses established that
Massenburg conspired to possess and to distribute and also possessed
heroin.* See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 58 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc). Furthermore, the record provides ample evidence to
support the firearms related charges. Thus, taking the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that a rational
jury could have found Massenburg guilty of the conspiracy and pos-
session charges. See Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862.

Accordingly, we affirm Massenburg's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
_________________________________________________________________
*Contrary to Massenburg's assertion on appeal, his conviction was not
based solely on the testimony of his accomplice. Even if it were true,
however, his conviction would not be tainted by that fact. See United
States v. Burns, 990 F.2d 1426, 1439 (4th Cir. 1993).

                    2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
