
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence DeWayne BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 28, 2002.
    
      Larry Mark Dash, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Timothy R. Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Terrence DeWayne Bullock was convicted by a jury of conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999), one count of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp.2001), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994), and one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841, 18 U.S.C. § 2. The jury found Bullock responsible for more than fifty grams of cocaine base and less than fifty kilograms of marijuana in the conspiracy. The jury also found Bullock distributed more than fifty grams of cocaine base and possessed with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana. Bullock was sentenced on May 30, 2001, to a 380 month term of incarceration on the conspiracy charge, a 380 month term for the cocaine distribution conviction, and a 120 month term on the marijuana conviction all to run concurrently.

On appeal, Bullock challenges the sufficiency of the evidence based on the assertions that testimony offered by the Government witnesses was inconsistent and therefore incredible, and that the witnesses against him fabricated the story they told at trial. This Court does not review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998). “The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves conflicts in the evidence presented, and if the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to believe.” United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir.1994). Accordingly, Bullock’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the witnesses’ credibility must be denied.

Bullock’s claims of error at sentencing are similarly without merit. Bullock’s aggregate sentence of 380 months was not beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statutes of conviction. Accordingly, the district court’s findings do not implicate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001); United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 219 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 39, 151 L.Ed.2d 12, 2001 WL 410328 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001) (No. 00-1605).

Bullock’s convictions and sentence are affirmed. 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.  