UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4298

SIXTO MARCELINO GARCIA, a/k/a Tito,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-87)

Submitted: April 13, 2000

Decided: April 21, 2000

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

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Douglas E. Kingsbery, THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P., Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sixto Marcelino Garcia appeals his 168-month sentence imposed
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib-
ute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West
1994 & Supp. 1999). Garcia asserts the district court erred in not stat-
ing its reasoning for imposing a sentence at the high end of the guide-
lines range and in sentencing him at the high end of the guidelines
range based upon his level of involvement in the offense of convic-
tion, when the court already increased his offense level under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 3B1.1(c) (1998).

Because Garcia did not object to the alleged errors below, we
review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c)
(West Supp. 1999), a sentencing court must state in open court the
reason for imposing a particular sentence. When the guidelines range
is more than twenty-four months, the court must further state in open
court the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point in the
guidelines range. See § 3553(c)(1). Even assuming that the court's
failure to explain its reasoning is reviewable, we find no plain error.
We further find that the court did not plainly err in both increasing
Garcia's sentence offense level and sentencing him at the high end of
the guidelines range based upon his role in the conspiracy. See 18
U.S.C. § 3661 (1994) ("No limitation shall be placed on the informa-
tion concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person
convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may
receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sen-
tence").

Accordingly, we affirm Garcia's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

                    2
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
