UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4253

MICHAEL C. BRANNON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-637)

Submitted: March 23, 2000

Decided: April 24, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas A.M. Boggs, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Harold Watson Gowdy, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael C. Brannon appeals his conviction and sentence for pos-
session with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). We affirm.

Initially, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by refusing to compel the Government to identify an informant whose
information provided the basis for issuance of a search warrant of a
residence where drugs and drug paraphernalia ultimately used against
Brannon were found. See United States v. Gray , 

, 1363
(4th Cir. 1995) (stating standard of review). Disclosure is not required
where, as in this case, the information from the informant is used for
the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant, see 

ticularly where the defendant, as in this case, merely speculates on the
usefulness of the disclosure, see United States v. Smith, 

, 1108 (4th Cir. 1985).

We also find that under the totality of the circumstances, the affida-
vit upon which the search warrant was based established a fair proba-
bility that illegal narcotics would be found at Brannon's residence.
See Illinois v. Gates, 

, 233 (1983) (stating standard of
review). Contrary to Brannon's position, the affidavit's clear state-
ment that the informant made a controlled, electronically monitored
drug purchase at the specific residence for which the officer sought
a search warrant indicated that drugs could be found on the premises.
Moreover, this statement bolstered the informant's reliability. See
United States v. Clyburn, 

, 618 (4th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment order.* We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
_________________________________________________________________
*In his pro se supplemental brief, Brannon cites several occasions
where his counsel allegedly rendered ineffective assistance. Because the
record does not conclusively demonstrate ineffective assistance of coun-
sel, we declined to review these claims on direct appeal. See United
States v. Gastiaburo, 

, 590 (4th Cir. 1994).

                    2
are adequately presented in the material before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3