UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Collins now appeals the district court's decision, claiming, as he did

before the district court, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. We affirm.

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support

a conviction bears "a heavy burden." United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d

1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, our role is limited to deciding whether "there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support

it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 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,

35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994).

At trial, Collins and three of his coworkers at the Norfolk Naval

Shipyard, Johnny Miles, William Delfenthal, and Laront Carney testified. 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 regulatory 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