UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie J. HOLTON, Defendant-Appellant, 131 F. App'x 25

PER CURIAM: Willie J. Holton was convicted by a jury of willfully failing to pay court-ordered child support from on or about June 1998 through September 15, 2003, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 228(a)(3) (West 2000). Holton appeals his conviction, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support it. We affirm. Holton contends that the Government failed to prove that he acted willfully. To determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court considers whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 495 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004). Substantial evidence is defined as “that evidence which ‘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. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc)).

The court reviews both direct and circumstantial evidence and permits “the [Government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be ‘confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.’ ” United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)).

Witness credibility is within the sole province of the jury, and the court will not reassess the credibility of testimony. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989). With these standards in mind, we conclude from the matérials on appeal that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that Holton willfully failed to pay child support during the period charged in the indictment. See United State v. Mattice, 186 F.3d 219, 225 (2d Cir.1999) (defining willfulness as “voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty”)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm Holton’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