UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 95-5647

MARCUS LAMONT SUMBLIN, a/k/a

Christopher Bryson, a/k/a T-90,

a/k/a T, a/k/a T-9,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge.

(CR-94-137)

Submitted: June 20, 1996

Decided: July 17, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jonathan M. Apgar, DAMICO & APGAR, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Lamont Sumblin seeks to appeal the 100-month sentence

he received after his guilty plea to possession of heroin with intent to

distribute. 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996). He contends that the district court did not depart far enough below the guideline range of 151-188 months in recognition of his substantial

assistance. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

Manual, § 5K1.1 (Nov. 1994). We dismiss the appeal.

An appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant's challenge to the extent of a downward departure unless the departure

resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from an

incorrect application of the guidelines. United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d

321, 322 (4th Cir. 1995). Sumblin alleges that the district court

ignored or failed to understand his addiction to heroin, wrongly

decided that he deliberately chose to use and distribute drugs, and

punished him unjustly by a lesser departure than he had hoped to

receive.

Sumblin had four prior drug convictions and a weapons conviction.

At the sentencing hearing, in response to a question from the district

court, Sumblin acknowledged that he had not used drugs for two

years during his most recent confinement. He said he was not

addicted when he got out of prison, but still had heroin on his mind

because he had received no drug counseling and immediately

resumed his old behavior. The district court commented that such

conduct was not impressive, but gave Sumblin a "substantial reward"

for his cooperation by departing 51 months below the guideline range.

Sumblin's sentence was not imposed in violation of law and did

not result from an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.

Like the appellant in Hill, he is simply dissatisfied with the extent of

the departure.

 2
We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

 3