UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4522

THOMAS NATHAN DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-95-502)

Submitted: November 6, 1997

Decided: November 21, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Lee Jenkins, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Andrew S. Cowan, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Thomas Nathan Davis appeals his conviction for one

count of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 113(a)(3) (West Supp. 1997). He claims that there was insufficient

evidence to sustain his conviction. Finding no merit to his contentions, we affirm.

Testimony at trial was conflicting. Norman "Danny" Loarca testified that, while he was preparing to pull his boat out of the Potomac

River, Davis approached him with a knife complaining that Loarca

was holding up traffic. Loarca ran, and as he did, he saw another person, Davis's son, smashing the windshield of Loarca's truck with an

ax. Loarca grabbed him, both fell to the ground, and then Davis's son

ran away. Davis then threw Loarca to the ground and jabbed him

repeatedly with the knife. Meanwhile, Loarca saw Davis's son break

the front window of Loarca's boat and damage the boat's fiberglass

with the ax. Davis and his son eventually got into Davis's vehicle and

sped away. Loarca sustained cuts in his left buttock and stomach area.

Loarca's story was corroborated by four government witnesses.

Noe Loarca, Danny Loarca's father, testified that he saw a "young fellow" get out of Davis's vehicle and damage the boat with a hatchet.

Farouk Hirmas, a friend of Danny Loarca's, testified that he saw

Danny arguing with a man who was holding a knife. Michael SmithWalker, a bystander, saw a person smashing Loarca's boat and then

fleeing. Finally, Detective Ernest Hoenigmann, of the U.S. Park

Police, testified that he located Davis three days after the incident

based on the description of Davis's vehicle.

The defense consisted primarily of the testimony of Davis, who

claimed that he was approached by seven or eight men throwing bottles at him. He said that, later, Danny Loarca blocked Davis's exit

with his boat. After Davis and Loarca exchanged words, Davis testified that Loarca lunged at him with a knife. He also saw a wrench hit

his van. In the struggle that ensued, Davis grabbed either the wrench

or the knife. Davis also asserts that he heard one of Loarca's friends

say "go get the pistola" before the struggle commenced. Davis

 2
claimed that, as he drove away, someone threw a sledgehammer into

the windshield of his vehicle.

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction so long as, "viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319

(1979) (emphasis in original); see United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d

1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993). An appellate court does not review the

jury's decision on the credibility of witnesses. See United States v.

Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).

The evidence at trial amply supported the jury's finding of guilt.

The testimony of the Government's witnesses was enough to establish

Davis's guilt if the jury found them credible, which it did. The jury's

verdict indicated that it credited the testimony of Loarca over the testimony of Davis. The trial transcript reveals that Davis's version of

the incident was often contradictory and was not consistent with the

physical evidence. For example, Davis claimed that a sledgehammer

was thrown and lodged in his windshield, an assertion directly contradicted by testimony that the windshield had several strike impressions

on it, not one, and that the sledgehammer could not have lodged in

the windshield because there was no hole in it.

Clearly, the jury had the opportunity to judge the demeanor and

credibility of Davis and elected not to credit his testimony. We will

not disturb the judgment. Accordingly, we find that a rational jury

could have concluded that Davis assaulted Loarca with a dangerous

weapon and did not act in self-defense. For these reasons, we affirm

the judgment of the district court. 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