
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Gonzalez GOMEZ, a/k/a Isidre Enrique German-Campos, a/k/a Bossman, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4827.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2002.
    Decided April 29, 2002.
    
      Ronald C. True, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Juan Gonzalez Gomez appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841 and 846 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Finding no error, we affirm. Gomez contends the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his July 1999 arrest for possessing methamphetamine. We review the district court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1170 (4th Cir.1995). Gomez’s July 1999 arrest for possession of methamphetamine occurred during the time frame charged in the indictment. We therefore find the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.

Gomez contends the district court erred in denying his post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and inquire whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of witnesses and assume the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony for the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998). Gomez argues it was not reasonable for the jury to believe the testimony of his co-conspirators. Because we do not review the credibility of witnesses, we find Gomez’s claims meritless.

For these reasons, we affirm Gomez’s conviction 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.  