UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4059

KEITH C. COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-163)

Submitted: June 22, 1999

Decided: September 15, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Keith C. Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Casey Allen Kniser, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appel-
lee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Keith C. Collins was charged with assaulting a coworker at the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Following a bench trial conducted pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 3401 (1994), a magistrate judge entered a judgment
of conviction, and Collins appealed to the district court. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 58(g)(2)(B). The district court affirmed the conviction. Col-
lins now appeals the district court's decision, claiming, as he did
before the district court, that there was insufficient evidence to con-
vict him. We affirm.

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support
a conviction bears "a heavy burden." United States v. Hoyte, 

, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evi-
dence, our role is limited to deciding whether "there is substantial evi-
dence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support
it." Glasser v. United States, 

, 80 (1942). It is the trier of
fact, not the reviewing court, that weighs the credibility of and
resolves any conflicts in the evidence. See United States v. Murphy,

, 148 (4th Cir. 1994).

At trial, Collins and three of his coworkers at the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, Johnny Miles, William Delfenthal, and Laront Carney testi-
fied. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the United
States, Collins and Miles began arguing over whether Miles should
participate in an equipment inspection. The argument escalated. When
Miles stood up and turned to walk away, Collins struck him in the jaw
with his fist, causing Miles to bleed and almost knocking him to the
ground. Carney and Delfenthal, who were present during the incident,
separated the two men.

On these facts, the evidence was sufficient to convict Collins of
assault. We accordingly affirm. We note that the judgment order
entered by the magistrate judge contains incorrect statutory and regu-
latory citations.* Accordingly, while we affirm, we also remand this
_________________________________________________________________
*The judgment cites to 18 U.S.C. § 18.2-57, a statute which does not
exist, and to 32 C.F.R. § 634.25 (1999), which pertains to traffic codes

                     2
matter to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting this
clerical error on the judgment. 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 AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
on military installations. The district court correctly cites to 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 113 (West Supp. 1999) in its order affirming Collins' conviction. The
judgment order should be corrected to reflect that Collins was convicted
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 113.

                    3