because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Roulhac first maintains that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike a particular juror for cause. However, a district court enjoys broad discretion in conducting voir dire, see Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594-95, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976), and the district court was well within its discretion in this case. Roulhac also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions on counts of committing the robberies or possessing or using a firearm. We conclude, though, that ample evidence supported the convictions. See United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir.2006) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Roul-hac maintains that the district
holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party holding that we must affirm the jurys verdict against a sufficiency challenge if there is substantial evidence taking the view most favorable to the government to support it internal quotation marks omitted holding that in reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government