UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5052 TRACY LEE CHARLTON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5053 TRINI LOUIS CHARLTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-94-188) Submitted: November 15, 1995 Decided: January 8, 1996 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL Nils E. Gerber, WRIGHT, PARRISH, NEWTON & RABIL, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Gerald E. Rush, Salisbury, NorthCarolina, for Appellants. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, TimikaShafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: The Appellants, Tracy and Trini Charlton, appeal their convictions of bank robbery, 1 bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, 2and carrying and using a firearm during the bank robbery. 3 The Appellants contend that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictionsand that a proper foundation was not laid for a witness's opinion testimony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the convictions and sentences. We review a denial of a motion for acquittal under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. 4 To sustain a conviction the evidence, whenviewed in the light most favorable to the government, must be sufficient for a rational jury to have found the essential elements of the

_________________________________________________________________ 1 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1988). 2 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1988). 3 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1988). 4 FED. R. CRIM. P. 29; United States v. Brooks , 957 F.2d 1138, 1147 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 60 U.S.L.W. 3879 (U.S. 1992). 2crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 5 All reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established may be made. 6 The government presented substantial evidence that the Appellants robbed a bank. Both Trini and Tracy gave similar confessions to investigators admitting responsibility for the bank robbery. A cardriven by Tracy matched the description of the vehicle observed leaving the scene of the crime, and clothes matching those described by witnesses, and verified by the bank surveillance photographs as worn by the robbers, were found in the car. Further, bills matching theserial numbers of the money taken in the bank robbery were recovered from Trini's automobile. The Appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence thatthey used a firearm in the commission of their crime. Several witnesses testified that the bank robbers used a sawed-off shotgun and pistol in connection with the crime. Bank surveillance photographs corroborated the witnesses' descriptions of the weapons. Further, theAppellants, in their confessions, admitted to using a sawed-off shotgun and a BB gun that looked like a .45 caliber pistol. From the evidence presented, we find there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict the Appellants on all charges.Finally, the Appellants assert that the district court erred by allowing a witness to testify that Tracy called her on the telephone and asked her not to testify. The contention is without merit. The witness was familiar with the Appellants and had conversations with both of them. It was reasonable for the court to conclude that she recognized Tracy's voice. Moreover, the court's evidentiary rulings are entitled to substantial deference. 7 We therefore affirm the Appellants' convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

_________________________________________________________________ 5 United States v. Brewer , 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993); see Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). 6 United States v. Tresvant , 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). 7 United States v. Russell , 971 F.2d 1098, 1104 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 61 U.S.L.W. 3479 (U.S. 1993). 3are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4