UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 98-4874

TIMOTHY ROMERO BENTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-98-36)

Submitted: June 22, 1999

Decided: July 12, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

B. Thomas Reed, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Timothy Benton appeals his conviction and 147 month
sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994); one count of armed bank robbery
by force and intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113(a), (d)
(West Supp. 1999); and using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)
(West Supp. 1999). On appeal, Benton contends that: (1) the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an evaluation to
determine his mental competency and (2) the court erred in finding
that Benton obstructed justice by perjuring himself at trial. We have
reviewed the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, and
affirm.

Although the district court characterized Benton's motion as one
made under "42 U.S.C. 4244(a)" when in actuality, the motion sought
an evaluation to determine mental competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 4241 (1994), the court made findings as to Benton's competency
and determined, based upon the record as a whole, that there was no
evidence indicating a competency hearing was warranted. See United
States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1290 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the
lower court's determination made it clear that the court considered all
factors appropriate to a consideration of a motion made under 28
U.S.C. § 4241 and would not have granted Benton's motion under the
standard applicable to that statute, we conclude the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Furthermore, the court
did not err in finding Benton obstructed justice by perjuring himself
at trial and in enhancing Benton's offense level based upon those
findings. See U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1997).

Accordingly, we affirm Benton's conviction and sentence. We
grant Benton's unopposed motion to submit the case on briefs
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
