UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4561

GUY MITCHELL THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CR-96-4)

Submitted: August 31, 1999

Decided: October 26, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christy Hardin Smith, FOLICKMAN & SMITH, L.L.C., Fairmont,
West Virginia, for Appellant. David E. Godwin, United States Attor-
ney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Guy Mitchell Thomas pled guilty to one count of aiding and abet-
ting in the distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). Thomas con-
tends that the district court erred by (1) finding that he was responsi-
ble for 963 grams of cocaine and 396 grams of crack cocaine, and (2)
denying a reduction in the base offense level for acceptance of
responsibility.* Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a district court's findings on the amount of drugs attri-
buted to the defendant for sentencing purposes for clear error. See
United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3790 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-9085).
The "government need only prove the amounts involved by a prepon-
derance of the evidence." United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604
(4th Cir. 1996). The district court is afforded"broad discretion" as to
"what information to credit" in making its calculations. United States
v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 722 (4th Cir. 1993). If resolution of a dis-
puted issue turns on the court's assessment of credibility, we will only
disturb the credibility finding if it is clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1992).

We find that the district court properly relied on the testimony of
those persons at the sentencing hearing who testified that they made
trips to Philadelphia for the purpose of purchasing drugs for Thomas.
Furthermore, there was no error in approximating the total amount of
drugs purchased in twenty trips to Philadelphia based on the amount
of drugs purchased during five trips to Philadelphia. The court may
_________________________________________________________________
*In his appellate brief, Thomas contends under the"Summary of
Argument" section that the district court erred by enhancing his base
offense level for being a manager. However, Thomas fails to expand or
even mention this contention in the "Argument" section. Because
Thomas did not assert any argument supporting this issue, the issue is
considered abandoned. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); 11126 Baltimore
Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George's County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 993 n.7 (4th
Cir. 1995).

                    2
rely on evidence that demonstrates a "sufficient indicia of reliability
to support its probable accuracy." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 6A1.3(a), p.s. (1995); see United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016,
1021 (4th Cir. 1992).

We also review the district court's determination not to reduce the
base offense level for acceptance of responsibility for clear error. See
United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1279 (4th Cir. 1995). "The
district court `is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's accep-
tance of responsibility,' and its determination`is entitled to great def-
erence on review.'" Id. (quoting USSG§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.5)). In
order to receive the reduction for acceptance of responsibility a defen-
dant must "affirmatively accept[ ] personal responsibility for his crim-
inal conduct." United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir.
1996). "[A] defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, rel-
evant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a man-
ner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility." USSG § 3E1.1
comment. (n.1).

The district court's finding that Thomas was not credible with
regard to his contention that his involvement in the drug dealing oper-
ation was significantly less than demonstrated by the testimony of
others was not clearly erroneous. The court found other witnesses to
be more credible. Because this finding is not clearly erroneous, it will
not be disturbed on appeal.

We affirm Thomas' sentence. 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 in the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
