UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                       No. 96-4821

JEFFREY T. MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-96-70)

Submitted: June 19, 1997
Decided: July 3, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, S.
David
Schiller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Jeffrey T. Miller appeals the sentence imposed after his guilty
plea
to three counts of possession of counterfeit federal reserve notes
in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (1994); three counts of distribution
of
counterfeit federal reserve notes and aiding and abetting, in
violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 473, 2 (1994); and assaulting a federal agent, in
viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (1994). We have reviewed the record,
includ-
ing the presentence report and the transcript of the sentencing
hearing,
and find that the district court did not clearly err in assessing
a two-
level enhancement for obstruction of justice under United States
Sen-
tencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3C1.1. (Nov. 1995).

During the preparation of Miller's presentence report and following
the district court's acceptance of Miller's guilty plea, Miller
main-
tained that he was innocent and denied all the facts supporting his
conviction, as he had done in an earlier suppression hearing.
Further,
during sentencing, Miller went to great lengths to minimize his
involvement in the offense. We find that the district court
properly
characterized Miller's actions as "willfully obstruct[ing] or
imped[-
ing] the administration of justice during the sentence phase." Such
behavior   provided sufficient support       for the sentencing
enhancement.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm Miller's 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
e
