UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 

, 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 ___, 

, 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

                    3