*167 OPINION

Chantez Tyrell Dickerson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West Supp. 2000). We affirm. Dickerson contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, “we must determine whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdict.” United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 238 (4th Cir. 1998). “[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses nor resolve any conflicts in the evidence presented at trial. Id.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and find sufficient evidence to support Dickerson’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.