OPINION

Michael Freeman appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). In his brief, he claims that no rational finder of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The parties stipulated that Freeman was a convicted felon, and that the relevant weapon met the definition of an operable firearm having traveled in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the only issue for the jury *96 was whether Freeman actually possessed the firearm.

Freeman claims that inconsistencies between the testimony of Government witnesses precluded any rational juror from concluding that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is essentially one of witness credibility. The credibility of witnesses is best left to the finder of fact, who has the best opportunity to observe them. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1070 (4th Cir. 1997). Likewise, resolution of conflicts in the testimony is the province of the jury, not the reviewing court. See United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this claim is not cognizable.

We affirm Freeman’s conviction and sentence. 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.