
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Victor STERLING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-4205.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 8, 2010.
    Decided: Nov. 12, 2010.
    M. Gordon Tayback, Law Offices of M. Gordon Tayback, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tonya Kelly Kowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sean Sterling appeals his convictions of two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (2006). On appeal, Sterling contends that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he possessed the weapons in furtherance of a heroin conspiracy. We affirm.

“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir.2007). We review a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir.2005); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). We review both direct and circumstantial evidence, and accord the Government all reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be established. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir.2008). “[I]f 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). We will uphold the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it, and will reverse only in those rare cases of clear failure by the prosecution. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-45.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Sterling’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  