
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Robert GROOM, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4184.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 18, 2002.
    Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony S. Murry, Trial Attorney, Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

John Robert Groom appeals his conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (2000). Groom was convicted following a bench trial in the District Court of South Carolina and sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Groom contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We must uphold Groom’s conviction on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. See 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). Groom stipulated that he transmitted the letter at issue in interstate commerce. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to find the letter contained a true threat. Accordingly, we affirm Groom’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.  