UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 99-4421

BENJAMIN LEWIS ROWLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-73)

Submitted: October 21, 1999

Decided: October 29, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James R. Cromwell, VOGEL & CROMWELL, L.L.C., Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,
Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Lewis Rowland pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
crack cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994),
and received a sentence of 121 months imprisonment. Rowland con-
tests on appeal the district court's decision not to award him an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1998). We affirm.*

Rowland initially entered a plea of not guilty and was released on
bond pending trial. He failed to appear for trial, was apprehended a
week later, and subsequently entered a guilty plea, admitting his part
in the conspiracy. He received an adjustment for obstruction of jus-
tice, see USSG § 3C1.1, as a result of his failure to appear. At sen-
tencing, Rowland argued that his was an unusual case in which a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility would be appropriate
despite his obstructive conduct. Ordinarily, conduct resulting in an
adjustment for obstruction of justice indicates that the defendant has
not accepted responsibility; however, in extraordinary cases both
adjustments may apply. See USSG § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4). In this
case, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that
Rowland had not fully accepted responsibility for his criminal con-
duct. See United States v. Castner, 

, 1279 (4th Cir. 1995)
(standard of review).

We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
_________________________________________________________________

*Although Rowland's plea agreement contained a waiver of his right
to appeal his sentence, the joint appendix does not include a transcript of
the guilty plea hearing. We are thus unable to determine whether the
waiver was valid, see United States v. Wessells , 

, 168 (4th
Cir. 1991), and must consider the merits of the appeal.

                    2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3