evidence, to support the verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.”). 2. Toliver and Mix jointly raise a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to their various drug and gun convictions. Their main contention is that given the complete lack of any physical evidence tying them to the crimes, in that no drugs or guns were introduced into evidence, it would be unconstitutional to uphold their sentences. However, the testimony at trial supports their convictions, and we affirm. Given the deference shown to the jury’s verdict upon appeal, we have held that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to uphold the conviction, even if that witness has credibility problems. United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Baker, 985 F.2d 1248, 1255
recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction holding that a warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause where it was based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of an unproven informant holding that uncorroborated accomplice testimony may provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction