UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 96-4025

MICHAEL MCKINZIE, a/k/a Michael

McKenzie, a/k/a Macadoo,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-21)

Submitted: October 3, 1996

Decided: October 16, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Margaret A. Hickey,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael McKinzie challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relating to his conviction for one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994),

one count of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994), and two counts of distributing cocaine

base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Finding no error, we affirm.

The conspiracy and possession counts involved a UPS package

containing crack cocaine. After a UPS employee made several unsuccessful attempts to deliver the package to the noted address, the

employee opened it and found illicit drugs. He notified police, who

asked him to notify them once someone arrived for the package.

Meanwhile, McKinzie asked two men to pick up the package for him.

When the two men arrived, police arrested them and arranged for a

controlled delivery to McKinzie. McKinzie was arrested upon receiving the package.

The distribution counts involved two controlled buys made through

a paid government informant. On both occasions, the informant told

McKinzie he wanted to purchase crack cocaine and McKinzie purchased the crack cocaine for the informant. Upon arresting McKinzie

after the second purchase, police found him holding the remainder of

the pre-recorded money the government gave the informant to give to

McKinzie to purchase the crack cocaine.

To withstand a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence must be sufficient for a rational jury to find the defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the light

most favorable to the government. United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d

1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942). Further, the government is entitled to all reasonable infer-

 2
ences from the established facts. United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d

1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).

First, McKinzie claims the evidence was insufficient to establish he

conspired with anyone and that he actually knew the UPS package

contained crack cocaine. However, the evidence revealed that McKinzie conspired with the two men to obtain a package of crack cocaine.

While the record is silent as to whether the men knew the package

contained illicit drugs, the government is entitled to all reasonable

inferences. Additionally, both men testified that they delivered the

package to McKinzie, that he opened the package before them, and

that he counted the cocaine packets inside. Thus, his claim that he did

not know the package contained cocaine is without merit.

As to the distribution counts, McKinzie claims only that the paid

government informant was unreliable. However, it is within the sole

province of the jury to assess the credibility of witness testimony.

United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992), cert.

denied, 506 U.S. 1066 (1993). Additionally, physical evidence corroborated the informant's testimony, as police found McKinzie with

the pre-recorded money upon arresting him.

Accordingly, we affirm McKinzie's conviction. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3