UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4780

SEYMONE C. RAIMER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-97-332)

Submitted: May 25, 1999

Decided: June 7, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Claire J. Rauscher, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Timika

Shafeek, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Seymone C. Raimer was arrested when she arrived in Charlotte,

North Carolina, on a flight from Jamaica carrying cocaine hidden in

toiletry items. Following a jury trial, she was convicted on one count

of possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(1994)), and one count of importation of cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 952

(1994)). The district court sentenced her to concurrent sixty-month

prison terms. Raimer appeals, contending that the district court

improperly allowed the Government to introduce certain testimony

and erred by failing to apply the safety valve provision when sentencing her. Finding her claims meritless, we affirm.

First, Raimer argues that the testimony from a law enforcement

agent concerning her statements to him about her knowledge of illegal

drug activities separate from those for which she was being tried violated Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence because: (1) the evidence was relevant to show that, despite her

claims to the contrary, she knew she was transporting drugs; (2) the

evidence was necessary to show part of the context of the crime; (3)

the evidence, which came directly from Raimer, was reliable; and (4)

its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of

unfair prejudice. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th

Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1572 (1998).

Raimer also argues that the court erred by failing to apply the

safety valve provision, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2

(1997), arguing that the Government failed to debrief her. However,

a defendant may not rely on the Government's failure to debrief her

unless the Government has promised to do so. See United States v.

Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 668-69 (4th Cir. 1996). There was no

such promise in this case. A defendant seeking the benefit of the

safety valve provision must affirmatively act to truthfully provide the

Government with all information he has concerning his offense and

also must acknowledge responsibility for his actions. See United

States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1147 (4th Cir. 1996). We find that

the district court did not err by finding that Raimer failed to truthfully

 2
acknowledge her knowing involvement in transporting cocaine from

Jamaica to North Carolina.

For these reasons, we affirm. 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