UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4551

LARRY CHIN, a/k/a Dallas,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-361-A)

Submitted: August 29, 1997

Decided: October 2, 1997

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Larry Chin, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Larry Chin was convicted by a jury of Count II, distribution of her-
oin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994); Count III, use of
juveniles in the distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 861(a)(1) (1994); Count IV, carrying a firearm during
and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1997); Count V, engaging in a continuing
criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.§ 848(a) (West Supp.
1997); and Count VI, importation of heroin in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(2) (West 1981 & Supp. 1997). The dis-
trict court sentenced Chin to 264 months imprisonment on Counts II,
III, V, and VI and 60 consecutive months on Count IV.

On appeal, we affirmed Chin's convictions under Counts II, III, IV,
and V, but vacated his conviction for Count VI and remanded to the
district court for resentencing. See United States v. Chin, 

(4th Cir. 1996). On remand, the district court, by order, vacated
Chin's sentence under Count VI and resentenced him on the remain-
ing four convictions to an identical term of imprisonment. Chin
appeals. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Chin, No. CA-94-361-A (E.D. Va. June
12, 1996). We do not, however, address numerous issues raised by
Chin in his informal brief, because the issues were not before the dis-
trict court on remand. See United States v. Bell, 

, 66 (4th Cir.
1993) (holding that the mandate rule "forecloses relitigation of issues
expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court" and "forecloses
litigation of issues decided by the district court but foregone on
appeal or otherwise waived, for example because they were not raised
in the district court"). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2