UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                No. 96-4016

DONALD EUGENE TIDWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                No. 96-4119

ROBERT HOLMES,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-297)

Submitted: November 26, 1996

Decided: January 9, 1997

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE, ROBINSON & HAWKINS,
L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina; Lionel S. Lofton, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher Sey-
bolt, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is a consolidated appeal of convictions arising from a large-
scale drug conspiracy in South Carolina. Appellant Donald Tidwell
appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib-
ute cocaine,1 and Appellant Robert Holmes appeals his convictions on
two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.2 Both
Appellants contend that the district court erred by denying their FED.
R. CRIM. P. 29 motions for acquittal. After reviewing the record, we
find no reversible error and affirm Tidwell's and Holmes's convic-
tions and sentences.

In appeal No. 96-4016, Tidwell asserts that the evidence failed to
establish that he either had knowledge of the conspiracy or agreed to
join the conspiracy as charged in the indictment. According to
Tidwell, the evidence merely showed that he associated with the other
defendants, and that they were possibly involved in drug transactions.
Tidwell's claim is without merit.

We review a denial of a motion for acquittal under a sufficiency
of evidence standard.3 To sustain a conviction the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the government, must be suffi-
_________________________________________________________________
1 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994).
2 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994).
3 United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1147 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
505 U.S. 1228 (1992).

                    2
cient for a rational jury to have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.4 All reasonable inferences from the
facts established to those sought to be established may be made.5 In
this case, the government presented testimony showing that Tidwell
was a participant in the drug conspiracy and that Tidwell purchased
substantial quantities of cocaine on several occasions.

While Tidwell argues that the government's evidence consisted
exclusively of testimony by co-defendants which was self-interested
and therefore unreliable, such an argument is unavailing. Tidwell had
every opportunity to challenge the criminal histories, biases, and
motivations of the government's witnesses during cross-examination
and argument. The jury found the government's evidence believable
and the jury's decision on the credibility of witnesses is not review-
able by this court.6

In appeal No. 96-4119, Holmes asserts that the evidence was insuf-
ficient to establish that he was the person who sold cocaine to the
informant on two occasions. Holmes's claim is without merit as the
evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government,
was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.7 The government offered
eyewitness testimony that Holmes was the one who provided cocaine
to the informant on January 19, 1994. In addition, testimony estab-
lished that the informant purchased cocaine from the same individual
on January 26, 1994. Like Tidwell, Holmes had an opportunity to
challenge the government's witnesses during cross-examination, and
we cannot substitute our judgment for the jury's. 8

Accordingly, the district court ruled correctly in denying the
_________________________________________________________________
4 United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993); see
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
5 United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
6 United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).

7 United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3563 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1995) (No. 94-
7337).
8 United States v. Johnson, 55 F.3d 976, 979 (4th Cir. 1995).

                     3
Defendants' Rule 29 motions. 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

                    4
