
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford J. BRIGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30284.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 3, 2009.
    Dwight Carter Holton, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Laura Graser, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Clifford J. Brigham appeals his conviction on thirteen counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 1-12, 14), four counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 15-18), and three counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts 21-23). Brigham preserved a sufficiency challenge on Counts 12,14 and 21-23. Accordingly, we review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction on those counts. United States v. Salman, 531 F.3d 1007, 1010 (9th Cir.2008). Brigham failed to preserve challenges on the remaining charges, and thus this court will reverse only if it finds plain error. United States v. Ross, 338 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam). We affirm.

Brigham’s attack on the credibility of the government’s witnesses is without merit. See United States v. Tam, 240 F.3d 797, 806 (9th Cir.2001) (“Absent facial incredibility, it is not our role to question the jury’s assessment of witness credibility.”); United States v. Yossunthorn, 167 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that credibility of a witness “is a question for the jury unreviewable on appeal”). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury conviction finding Brigham guilty of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     