*177 OPINION

Muhammad Habeebullah appeals his 110-month sentence and convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and and to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 2001), and attempted possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).

On appeal, Habeebullah challenges his convictions based on the sufficiency of the evidence. First, he contends that the evidence against him is purely circumstantial. Second, he argues the Government failed to prove that there was at least one other person who conspired with him to distribute cocaine, or that he knew that any package ever sent to him contained cocaine. Third, he avers the evidence could not support his attempt conviction because he never touched the only package proven to contain cocaine.

The relevant question on appeal is not whether the court is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Stewart, 256 F.3d 231, 250 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 633, 151 L.Ed.2d 553 (2001) (citing United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996)).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the Government presented sufficient evidence supporting Habeebullah’s convictions. We specifically note that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857-58. 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.