
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Lazelle FLOYD, a/k/a Larry L. Floyd, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 29, 2000.
    Decided Jan. 16, 2001.
    
      Nils E. Gerber, Winston-Salem, NC, for appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Larry Lazelle Floyd appeals Ms conviction following a jury trial for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). In the sole issue raised by Floyd in this appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denymg his Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for acquittal. Floyd contends that his own uncorroborated statements and notarized affidavit in which he admitted possession of the crack cocaine at issue were insufficient to support his conviction. This court reviews the demal of a motion for acquittal under a sufficiency of evidence standard. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 29; See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); 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). In light of that standard, we have no difficulty in deciding that the district court did not err in denying Floyd’s motion. Floyd’s argument amounts to an invitation to this court to reweigh the evidence at trial; an invitation we uniformly decline to accept. See Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80; United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, Floyd’s conviction 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. 
      
      The court has considered and rejected the v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, possibility of reversible error under Apprendi 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
     