OPINION

Johnnie Lee James, Jr., appeals his conviction for retaliation against a witness, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 1513(b)(1) (West Supp. 2000), and sentence of thirty-three months’ imprisonment. James’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the single claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support James’ conviction. James filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing facts and challenging his sentence. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have considered the briefs on appeal and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.

To determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this Court considers whether there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 854 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 257, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57 (1992)). We do not re-weigh the evidence or re-consider the credibility of witnesses. See Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80; United States v. Aragon, 983 F.2d 1306, 1308 (4th Cir. 1993).

This case involves a physical altercation occurring between James and a former co-worker following the conclusion of a civil trial in which James was the plaintiff, the co-worker testified for the defense, and the trial resulted in a defense verdict. The jury in the instant criminal case was required to determine whether James’ version or the co-worker’s version of the facts surrounding the altercation was more credible. It is well established that the question of witness credibility is within the sole province of the jury and not susceptible to review. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). The jury had sufficient evidence upon which to base its guilty verdict.

With respect to James’ pro se challenge to his sentence, he was sentenced within the guidelines range and below the statutory maximum. Therefore, his sentence is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

*144 Pursuant to Anders, this Court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Accordingly, we affirm James’ conviction and sentence. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.