
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dejuan Anderko WATKINS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4396.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 2, 2004.
    
      Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Dejuan Anderko Watkins appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).

On appeal, Watkins contends that his uncorroborated confession is insufficient to support his conviction. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that there was substantial independent evidence to corroborate Watkins’ confession, and the evidence as a whole proved Watkins’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192 (1954).

Watkins also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because he did not take a substantial step towards the completion of the offense. We disagree. The record clearly establishes that Watkins took several substantial steps toward the completion of the crime. See United States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 906 (4th Cir.1996).

Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, and assuming that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Watkins’ conviction. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir.2002); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996). 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  