UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4323

ANTHONY CRAIG GOODSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-98-188)

Submitted: September 28, 1999

Decided: October 18, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Janiere E. Monroe, Third Year Law Student,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Craig Goodson appeals from a seventy month sentence
following his convictions for conspiracy to defraud a federally
licensed firearms dealer, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(a)(6), 922(g)(1) (West
Supp. 1999), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West Supp. 1999). Goodson claims
on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions
and that the court abused its discretion when it permitted the Govern-
ment to show the jury a firearm of the same make and model as the
one on which the charges were based for demonstrative purposes.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a jury verdict for the sufficiency of the evidence by
determining whether there is substantial evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdict. See
Glasser v. United States, 

, 80 (1942). In evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the
witnesses, and we assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in
the testimony in favor of the Government. See United States v.
Romer, 

, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,

(1999). We have reviewed the record and find that
substantial evidence supports Goodson's convictions. See id.; see also
United States v. Wells, 

, 811 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding
United States v. Lopez, 

(1995), inapplicable to 18
U.S.C.A. § 922(g), and applying Scarborough v. United States, 

, 575 (1977)); United States v. Langley , 

, 606
(4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). We further find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it permitted the brief, demonstrative use
of the same model shotgun at the end of the Government's case-in-
chief.* See United States v. Aramony, 

, 1377-78 (4th
Cir. 1996).
_________________________________________________________________
*Goodson's reliance on Old Chief v. United States, 

(1997), is misplaced. In Goodson's case, unlike Old Chief, the dispute
involved physical evidence, not legal status, so the reasoning of Old
Chief does not apply.

                    2
Accordingly, we affirm Goodson's convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3