
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph P. DODSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4609.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2002.
    Decided March 8, 2002.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, James A. Candelmo, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Paul Dodson was convicted after a bench trial of misappropriation of property in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.30(a)(1) (2001), and sentenced to three years supervised release. He appeals his conviction, claiming the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilt. In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is not whether this court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th cir.1996) (en banc). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

At the bench trial, the combined testimony of the Government’s witnesses established that a sailboard was stolen from a tourist on the Hatteras National Seashore. Dodson thereafter entered three area sailing shops and represented he wished to sell a board given to him by a friend in exchange for a debt. Dodson later told Park Ranger Steven Ryan he found a sailboard on the side of the same road from which the board was stolen. The trial court clearly chose to believe the Government’s witnesses and draw inferences from their testimony in the Government’s favor. We will not review the trial court’s credibility determinations. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998). Thus, we affirm Dodson’s conviction.

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.  