the evidence, but assess it in the light most favorable to the government. Thus, Hebert’s argument is that there was no evidence that he knew what the box contained—a position supported by two witnesses who also did not realize the box contained blasting caps. But Britt’s testimony was clear: He knew the box contained blasting caps, so he called the police and guarded the box until it was removed from the house. Miller’s testimony was less clear. She explained that she was untruthful during the telephone interview with the police because she did not want to become involved. Even though Miller changed her story, it was within the province of the jury to decide what part of her testimony to credit and what to reject. Cf, United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1115 (10th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>), Hebert also contends that the jury was
holding that it is function of trial court to judge witnesses credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence holding that a successor judge may consider a motion for new trial in a case tried to the court where she is not required to weigh conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of witnesses but can resolve such issues  upon evidence which is not materially in conflict holding court does notweigh conflicting evidence or consider witness credibility and witnesses conflicting or differing accounts do not necessarily render the evidence insufficient holding that it is trial courts function to evaluate witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence holding that on a motion for summary judgment it is settled that a trial court is not permitted to weigh material conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses