UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4270

JEFFREY D. CRITTENDON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-99-51)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: October 12, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stephen A. Hudgins, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Damon A. King, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Jeffrey Crittendon of one count each of assaulting his daughter with a knife and sexually assaulting her. On appeal, he alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of guilt and that the district court erred by allowing the Government to present evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 404(b). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Crittendon's daughter, who was thirteen at the time of the assault, testified that he held a knife to her throat and threatened to harm her because she was making trouble for him with her mother. She was able to push him off her and hide in a bathroom. When she finally emerged, Crittendon again grabbed her, threw her down on a bed, and tried to insert his finger into her vagina. The girl was again able to escape and ran to a neighbor's house.

On direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a "verdict must be sus- tained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States,

(1942). In the present case, the victim testified concerning the assaults. Several other witnesses gave corroborating testimony. Crit- tendon did not offer any testimony or evidence to refute the victim's version of the events. Although Crittendon claims that there were inconsistencies in the testimony, counsel explored these during cross- examination, and the jury resolved the credibility issue in the Govern- ment's favor. See United States v. Singh,

(4th Cir. 1995) (holding that appellate courts do not weigh witnesses' credibil- ity on appeal). We therefore find that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

We review the district court's decision to admit Rule 404(b) evi- dence for abuse of discretion and find none. See United States v. Queen,

(4th Cir. 1997). The court properly applied the test set forth in Queen and found that the evidence was relevant to an issue other than character, necessary, reliable, and that the preju- dicial effect was outweighed by its probative value. See

. Specifically, there was testimony that Crittendon told his daughter

2 that he was "just joking" after he assaulted her with the knife. The challenged evidence was offered to refute any such claim and to establish intent and lack of mistake.

Accordingly, we affirm Crittendon's convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3