UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4544

ROGER DALE HODGES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.

James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CR-99-5)

Submitted: February 29, 2000

Decided: April 24, 2000

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christopher F. Cowan, COWAN, NORTH & LAFRATTA, L.L.P.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United

States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Roger Dale Hodges appeals from sentences totaling 168 months

following his convictions for two counts of possession of firearms and

ammunition by a felon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1999),

and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) (1994). We have reviewed the record, find no reversible

error, and affirm.

Hodges claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions. This court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency of the

evidence by determining whether there is substantial evidence, when

viewed in a light most favorable to the government, to support the

verdict. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not review the

credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. See United

States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525

U.S. 1141 (1999). In order to prove that Hodges violated 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 922(g)(1), the Government had to prove that: (1) he was previously

convicted of a felony and his right to possess a firearm had not been

restored; (2) he knowingly possessed the firearm; and (3) the firearm

that he possessed had traveled in or affected interstate commerce. See

United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

To show Hodges' guilt on the drug charge, the Government had to

demonstrate that Hodges knowingly and intentionally possessed the

marijuana and that he had the specific intent to distribute it. See 21

U.S.C.A. § 841(a). We have reviewed the record and find that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts.

Hodges also claims that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of his prior convictions. This court reviews a district court's

evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.

 2
Grimmond, 137 F.3d 823, 831 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,

119 S. Ct. 124 (1998). Although a defendant's prior bad acts may not

be admitted to show his conformity therewith, see Fed. R. Evid.

404(b), such evidence may be admissible if it is:"(1) relevant to some

issue other than character, (2) necessary to prove an element of the

crime charged, and (3) reliable." See United States v. Van Metre, 150

F.3d 339, 349 (4th Cir. 1998). Although Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) is an

inclusive rule, see Grimmond, 137 F.3d at 831, certain evidence meeting the criteria of this rule will be excluded if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed.

R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice refers to evidence that has a tendency

"to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from

proof specific to the offense charged." See Old Chief v. United States,

519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997). The record discloses that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior acts evidence.

Accordingly, we affirm Hodges' convictions and sentences. 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

 3