UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 94-5825 BRYANT ROGER CAIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-93-277) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL George A. Epstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Bryant Roger Cain pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1995), and r eceived a sentence of 135 months imprisonment. He contends on appeal that the district court erred in findingthat he had more than a minor role in the offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 3B1.2(b) (Nov. 1993). Finding no clear error, we affirm the sentence.In six recorded telephone calls, Cain negotiated the sale of a halfkilogram of crack to a confidential informant. When the sale took place on October 24, 1991, Cain arrived at the meeting pl ace with David Brown, who then made a telephone call to his brother, Ronald Brown. At Ronald Brown's request, everyone moved across the street to a different parking lot, where Ronald Brown delivered the crack. Cain subsequently negotiated with an undercover agent posing as a friend of the informant for another half-kilogram sale. However, the sale never took place. Ronald Brown was later killed. In 1993, Cain and David Brown were charged with conspiracy in connection with the October 1991 sale. Both entered guilty pleas. When he wasarrested, Cain had 18 packets of crack in his pocket. He owned a Corvette and a Nissan Pathfinder, both of which he had purchased with cash in the names of relatives. Cain argued at sentencing that he was a minor participant because he merely acted as a middleman or broker for the Browns and because there was no direct evidence that he profited from the deal. Under USSG § 3B1.2, a minor participant is a one who is less culpable than most other participants, but who has more than a minimal role. In determining the defendant's role, the district court should not only compare his conduct with that of the other participants, but weigh it against the elements of the offense of conviction. United States v. Reavis , 48 F.3d 763, 769 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3890 (U.S. June 19, 1995) (No. 94-9316). The district court agreed with the government that Cain was more than a minor participant because he was instrumental in bringing
2about the sale. The court took into account that, during the October 24, 1991, sale, Cain told the confidential informant that he had beendealing with Ronald Brown for six years and also considered the evidence that Cain continued his involvement with drug sales until his arrest. We find that the district court's determination of this factual question, id. at 770, was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed.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