United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2628
United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the Unite d States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Juvenile L.B.G., * * Appellant. *
Submitted: November 18, 1997 Filed : December 23, 1997

Before BEAM, HEANEY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
L.B.G., a Native-American juvenile, challenges th e evidence supporting the district court’s adjudicatio n that he is a delinquent. Because the district court did not commit clear error and because substantial evidenc e supports the adjudication of delinquency, we affirm.At the adjudicatory hearing, L.B. G. pleaded guilty to Count II, and he does not 1 raise it as a subject of this appeal. 2 I.

An information filed on February 20, 1997, charge d L.B.G. with the December 26, 1996 robbery of a Taco John’ s restaurant in Pine Ridge, Sout h Dakota. Also on February 20, 1997, the United States Attorney filed a certificate for juvenile proceedings. On March 19, 1997, a su perseding information was filed which contained th e original robbery charge as Count I and a charge o f
assau lting, resisting or impeding a federal officer a s Count II. 1

On April 24, 1997, the district court held a n adjudicatory hearing on the matter. At the hearing , government witnesses testified that two males robbed the restaurant between 9:15 and 9:20 p.m. One of the male s was wearing a black, inside-out “Starter” jacket. Th e other male was wearing a stocking cap and a blue and whit e jack et. The males entered the restaurant, made a larg e order, and then demanded money from the cashier. During the course of the robbery, the male in the stocking ca p in dicated that he had a gun. Witnesses described th e males as sixteen or seventeen years old. At the time of the robbery, three Taco John’s employees were on th e premises. Two of the employee s, Chris Janis and Pricilla3

Cum mings, later identified L.B.G. as the robber in th e stocking cap. The remaining employee, C.W., was unable t o identifyL.B.G. as one of the robbers. In his defense , L.B. G. challenged the eyewitness testimony and produce d alibi testimony suggesting that he was in Rapid Cit y between6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on the day of the robbery; tha t heavy snow was fallingAt the time of sentencing, L.B.G. was seventeen years old. 2 4 that evening, which would have made driving difficult; an d th at L.B.G. did not have access to a car to make th e approximately

100-mile trip from Rapid City to Pine Ridge
.
After making findings of fact and credibilit y dete rminations, the district court adjudicated L.B.G. a delinquent. On May 22, 1997, L.B.G. was sentenced to a two-y ear term of imprisonment and placed on probatio n until he reache d the age of twenty-one. L.B.G. appeals. 2

II.

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supportin g a c riminal conviction, “we look at the evidence in th e li ght most favorable to the verdict and accept a s established all reasonable inferences supporting th e verd ict.” United States v. Black Cloud , 101 F.3d 1258 , 1263 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). We adopt th e same standard to review the sufficiency of evidenc e suppo rting an adjudication of delinquency. See, e.g. , United States v. De Leon , 768 F.2d 629, 631 (5th Cir
. 1985) (“We agree with . . . every other circuit that has pass ed on the question, that the standard of review fo r suff iciencyof the evidence in an appeal from a federa l juven ile adjudication is identical to that in federa l criminal appeals . . . .”) (citations omitted). Th e5

evidence supporting L.B.G.’s adjudication as a delinquent , then, “need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis o f innoc ence, but simply be sufficient to convince th e [factfinder] beyond a reasonab le doubt that the defendant is guilty.” United States v. McGuire , 45 F.3d 1177, 1186 (8th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).6

In his brief, L.B.G. argues that no reasonabl e factfinder could have found him guilty beyond a reasonabl e doubt. He alleges that the dubious nature of eyewitness testimonyidentifying him as one of the robbers, C.W.’ s failure to positively identify him as one of the robbers at trial, and alibi testimony raise a reasonable doub t that L.B.G. was one of the robbers.
L.B.G. suggests that eyewitness testimony identifying him as one of the robbers was not credible. For example, Janis did not identify L.B.G. as one of the robbers until
more than a month after the robbery occurred. Janis had also unsuccessfully attempted to convince C.W. that L.B.G
. was one of the robbers. L.B.G. points out that Cummings initially expressed doubt as t o whether she would be able to identify either of the robbers. Nevertheless, Cumming s was able to identify L.B.G. as one of the robbers for the first time at the hearing.
At the hearing, Janis and Cummings both testified, in
no u ncertain terms, that L.B.G. was the robber who wor e the stocking cap. As the factfinder, the district court was persuaded by this testimon y and found that L.B.G. had
ro bbed the Taco John’s. We review a district court’ s factual findings for clear error and accord deference to its credibility determinations. Hadley v. Groose , 97 F.3 d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1996) (ci tations omitted). While we
are concerned about the problems of eyewitnes s7

misidentification, United States v. Dodge , 538 F.2d 770, 784 (8th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted), we will reverse
a dis trict court’s factual finding only if, afte r reviewing the record, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. ” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Having carefully reviewed the record, we hav e no such conviction.8

L.B.G. suggests that C.W.’s inability to positivel y ide ntifyhim as one of the robbers at the adjudicator y hearing raises reasonable doubt as to whether L.B.G. was one of the robbers. We disagree. “It is well establishe d that the uncorroborated testim ony of a single witness may be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” Dodge , 538 F.2d at 783 (citations omitted). In this case, tw o eyewitnesses testified that L.B.G. was one of the robbers
. Additionally, we note that while C.W. did not positively identifyL.B.G. as one of the robbers, she did not rul e him out as one of the robbers either. The district court did n ot err in concluding that L.B.G. was one of th e robb ers in light of C.W.’s inability to identify him a s such at the hearing.

At th e hearing, L.B.G. elicited alibi testimony from his grandmother, mother, older brother, older brother’ s girlfriend, and older brother’s friend. In summary, thes e witnesses testified that in late November, L.B.G. had gon e to liv e with his older brother in Rapid City , approximately100 miles from Pine Ridge; that L.B.G. was at his brother’s apartment on December 26, 1996, the day of the robbery, until approximately 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. ; that on that day, it was snowing heavily, which would hav e made driving difficult; and that L.B.G. did not drive or have access to a car to make the approximately 100-mil e trip to Pine Ridge. At the conclusion of the hearing, th e distr ict court found that neither L.B.G.’s mother no r9

grandmother provided substantive testimony that woul d support an alibi defense. As to L.B.G.’s remaining three alibi witnesses, the district court found that all three lacke d credibility. According the district court th e proper deference in making its credibility determinations , we cannot say that it erred in discrediting the alib i testimony.10 III.

Fo r the foregoing reasons, we conclude that th e distric t court did not commit clear error and tha t substantial evidence supports the district court’ s adjudication of L.B.G. as a delinquent. Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest.
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT .