UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4463

MARGARET M. ADKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-98-194)

Submitted: January 6, 2000

Decided: February 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Karen L. Bleattler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Margaret M. Adkins appeals her conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of

(g) (1994). On appeal, Adkins contends that the evidence adduced at trial was not sufficient to support her conviction and that the district court violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) by allowing certain testimony regarding her actions and demeanor on the evening of her offense. We have reviewed the evidence of record and find that it amply supports Adkins' conviction. See United States v. Hoyte ,

(4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Brewer,

(4th Cir. 1993). Adkins' contentions amount to little more than an invitation to this court to revisit the credibility of the Government's witnesses, a course of action we routinely decline. See United States v. Murphy,

(4th Cir. 1994). Neither can we discern any error stemming from the district court's failure to exclude testimony describing Adkins' actions and appearance on the evening in ques- tion. United States v. Powers,

(4th Cir. 1995).

Finding no merit to either of Adkins' contentions on appeal, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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

2