UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 99-4540
MARTINEZ ANTWON BOWENS, a/k/a
Twon, a/k/a T-Money,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-98-380)

Submitted: March 31, 2000

Decided: April 17, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dannie R. Sutton, Jr., GOODWIN, SUTTON, DUVAL & GEARY,
P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United
States Attorney, Michael C. Wallace, Sr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Martinez Antwon Bowens was convicted of possession with intent
to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1)
(1994), and sentenced to 324 months' imprisonment. On appeal,
Bowens maintains that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support
his conviction; (2) the district court erred in admitting testimony
regarding his prior drug convictions and related drug conduct; and (3)
the district court improperly enhanced his sentence for obstruction of
justice. We have reviewed the formal briefs and the joint appendix
and find sufficient evidence to sustain Bowens' conviction. See
Glasser v. United States, 

, 80 (1942). Furthermore, we
find no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary deci-
sions. See United States v. Hassan El, 

, 731 (4th Cir. 1993).
Last, we find that the district court's findings that Bowens perjured
himself on the stand were sufficient as a matter of law to support the
two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and were not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Castner, 

, 1279 (4th Cir.
1995).

Accordingly, we affirm Bowens' conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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