
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Gary TAYLOR, a/k/a Aldoc001, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2001.
    Decided March 27, 2001.
    Thomas C. Carter, Carter & Kramer, P.C., Alexandria, VA, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Michael E. Rich, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Albert Gary Taylor was convicted by a jury on one count of traveling interstate to engage in sexual relations with a juvenile, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (1994), and two counts of using a facility of interstate commerce to entice a juvenile to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (1994). He was sentenced to seventy-one months imprisonment. We affirm.

On appeal, Taylor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions on all three counts. Specifically, with respect to the first count, Taylor maintains that the jury improperly rejected his entrapment defense. As to the remaining two counts, Taylor argues that he did not know and could not have known the age of the girls in question, and therefore the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the convictions.

This Court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether there is substantial evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, 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), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141, 119 S.Ct. 1032, 143 L.Ed.2d 41 (1999).

We have reviewed the briefs and materials submitted in the joint appendix and find sufficient evidence to support the convictions. We further reject Taylor’s claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’s convictions 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.  