OPINION

Ricardo Antione King appeals from his conviction following a jury trial of interference with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000), using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000), possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime *689 punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

On appeal, King contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the pretrial and in-court identifications of John and Sun Jung. A district court’s decision to admit eyewitness testimony, as any evidentiary ruling, is entitled to substantial deference and may only be reversed if the court clearly abused its discretion. United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1168 (4th Cir. 1995). Because we find the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, see Holdren v. Legursky, 16 F.3d 57, 61 (4th Cir. 1994), and the Jungs’ identifications were rehable under the totality of the circumstances, see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), we find the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the contested testimony.

King next contends the district court gave the jury a coercive Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), charge. Because King failed to object at trial, review is for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We find no such error.

Finahy, King challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him, alleging that without the Jungs’ identification testimony, no reasonable jury could find the Government sustained its burden of proof. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find a reasonable trier of fact could have found the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

Accordingly, we affirm King’s convictions. 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.