UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-5006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DOUGLAS D. WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-04-396)

Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: October 18, 2005

Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Michael S. Nachmanoff, Meghan S. Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant United States Attorney, Monica M. Goodling, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Douglas D. Washington was convicted by a magistrate

judge, pursuant to

(2000), of simple assault on a

federal officer in violation of

(2000). He was

sentenced to eighty days in prison followed by one year of

supervised release and a $500 fine. Following sentencing,

Washington appealed the magistrate judge’s ruling denying his

motion for judgment of acquittal to the district court pursuant to

Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2), and the district court affirmed. On

appeal, Washington contends the district court erred in assessing

the evidence of force and finding it sufficient to sustain his

conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g), on appeal from a conviction

and/or sentence imposed by a magistrate judge, the “defendant is

not entitled to a trial de novo by a district judge. The scope of

the appeal is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from

a judgment entered by a district judge.” Fed. R. Crim. P.

58(g)(2)(D). In determining whether sufficient evidence supports

a conviction, the appropriate inquiry is whether, taking the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any

reasonable trier of fact could have found the Defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States,

(1942). In bench trials, “the judge weighs the evidence,

determines the credibility of the witnesses, and finds the facts

- 2 - . . . [and] may select among conflicting inferences to be drawn

from the testimony.” United States v. Bales,

(4th Cir. 1987). The standard of review for sufficiency of the

evidence is de novo. See United States v. Burgos,

(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Our review of the record convinces us the district court

properly assessed the evidence under a reasonable person standard,

and there was sufficient evidence to support Washington’s

conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Washington’s conviction and

sentence and the district court’s order affirming the magistrate

judge’s decision. 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

- 3 -