UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                 v.                            No. 02-4002
JOHN PAUL DYKE,
             Defendant-Appellant.
                                       
           Appeal from the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
            Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
                            (CR-01-82)

                      Submitted: May 7, 2002

                      Decided: May 21, 2002

        Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
               HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.



Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


                            COUNSEL

Carolyn Virginia Grady, EPPERLY, FOLLIS & SCHORK, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States
Attorney, John S. Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Peter B.
Baruch, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
2                      UNITED STATES v. DYKE
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).


                             OPINION

PER CURIAM:

   John Paul Dyke appeals his 108-month sentence imposed after a
guilty plea to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (1994) and
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (1994). We find
the district court properly sentenced Dyke and affirm.

   Dyke contends the district court erred in imposing a two-level
enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines Man-
ual § 2F1.1(b)(7) (1998) based on its finding that his fraudulent con-
duct involved the reckless risk of serious bodily injury and in
imposing a four-level enhancement under §§ 3A1.1(b)(1) and (b)(2)
for an offense involving a large number of unusually vulnerable vic-
tims. We review the district court’s factual determinations for clear
error. See United States v. Turner, 

, 1357-58 (4th Cir.
1996). Given the circumstances of Dyke’s offense, we find the district
court did not clearly err in applying the enhancements. See United
States v. Singh, 

, 1191 (4th Cir. 1995).

   Dyke also challenges the district court’s seven-level upward depar-
ture for non-monetary loss and extreme conduct. We find the district
court did not error in departing upward seven levels. See United
States v. Bonetti, 

, 449 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v.
Rybicki, 

, 757 (4th Cir. 1996).

  Accordingly, we affirm Dyke’s 108-month sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         AFFIRMED