United States v. Anthony Graham

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4919

ANTHONY BRYAN GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-131)

Submitted: March 20, 2000

Decided: April 28, 2000

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth M. Farber, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Bryan Graham appeals from his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We affirm.

According to the evidence at trial, an informant phoned Graham and arranged to buy five ounces of cocaine for $5000. Graham went to the specified meeting place with his supplier, Lawrence Williams, who traveled in a separate car. The police arrested both men. When they were arrested, Graham had no cocaine in his possession, but the police found cocaine and a gun in Williams' car.

Graham's first claim on appeal is that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on the gun found in Williams' car. The district court found that it was foreseeable to Graham that Williams would carry a weapon. Given the relatively large amounts of cocaine and cash involved in this transaction, this finding was not clearly erro- neous. See United States v. Kimberlin, 18 F.3d 1156, 1160 (4th Cir. 1994).

Graham next asserts that the district court incorrectly denied his new trial motion. In moving for a new trial, Graham proffered that he had recently obtained evidence showing that his telephone conversa- tions with the informant never occurred. The calls were recorded, however, and Graham admitted at trial that the calls took place. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Graham's motion. See United States v. Rhynes, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 1426103, at *7 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 1999) (Nos. 97-4465, 97-4466, 97-4467, 99-4468, 97- 4469, 97-4470, 99-4602, 97-4640).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED