UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4381

RICHARD LEE BALDWIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-97-261)

Submitted: April 30, 1999

Decided: May 26, 1999

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North

Carolina; Michael A. Grace, MICHAEL A. GRACE, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United

States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Richard Baldwin appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (1994). We affirm.

Baldwin asserts that the district court erred in denying his request

for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The

Fourth Amendment entitles a defendant to a pre-trial hearing to challenge the validity of a search warrant affidavit if the defendant

"makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement

knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,

was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause."

Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. The district court's finding that statements were not deliberately false or made with a reckless disregard

for the truth is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See

United States v. Jones, 913 F.2d 174, 176 (4th Cir. 1990). As the district court properly found, Baldwin's evidence was insufficient to

show that the statement presented in support of the search warrant

constituted a deliberate falsehood or that the officers had a reckless

disregard for the truth. Therefore, the district court did not err in

denying Baldwin's request for a Franks hearing.

Baldwin also asserts that the search warrant application contained

insufficient information to establish probable cause. In reviewing a

magistrate's assessment of probable cause, this court must give "great

deference" to the magistrate's assessment of the facts presented to

him. United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1990).

This court asks whether the magistrate had a "substantial basis" for

concluding probable cause existed. Id. Here, the search warrant application contained information that a confidential reliable source made

a controlled purchased of crack cocaine at 118 Jewell Street and that

 2
he observed additional quantities of cocaine at that location. The

application further stated that the confidential source was familiar

with the drug crack and had in the past provided the Davidson County

Sheriff's Office with information that led to arrests and convictions

for drug offenses. This information was sufficient for the magistrate

to find probable cause to search. See United States v. Williams, 974

F.2d 480, 481-82 (4th Cir. 1992).

Baldwin's final claim is that the district court erred in enhancing

his sentence under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual

("U.S.S.G.") § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997) for the gun found in the locked

glove compartment of his car. We review a district court's finding

that a defendant possessed a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error. See United States v. Apple, 915 F.2d

899, 914 (4th Cir. 1990). Here, the gun was found fully loaded in

Baldwin's car on the same day he made the sale of cocaine for which

he stands convicted. The cocaine transaction occurred in close proximity to the car. Inside the car police also found a pager. Baldwin

admitted at sentencing that in the past he had used a pager when dealing drugs. On this evidence the connection between the gun and the

drug offense was not clearly improbable. Therefore, the district

court's application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) was not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, we affirm Baldwin's conviction and 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3