UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4561

GUY MITCHELL THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.

Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.

(CR-96-4)

Submitted: August 31, 1999

Decided: October 26, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christy Hardin Smith, FOLICKMAN & SMITH, L.L.C., Fairmont,

West Virginia, for Appellant. David E. Godwin, United States Attorney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,

West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Guy Mitchell Thomas pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting in the distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). Thomas contends that the district court erred by (1) finding that he was responsible for 963 grams of cocaine and 396 grams of crack cocaine, and (2)

denying a reduction in the base offense level for acceptance of

responsibility.* Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a district court's findings on the amount of drugs attributed to the defendant for sentencing purposes for clear error. See

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,

___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3790 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-9085).

The "government need only prove the amounts involved by a preponderance of the evidence." United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604

(4th Cir. 1996). The district court is afforded"broad discretion" as to

"what information to credit" in making its calculations. United States

v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 722 (4th Cir. 1993). If resolution of a disputed issue turns on the court's assessment of credibility, we will only

disturb the credibility finding if it is clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1992).

We find that the district court properly relied on the testimony of

those persons at the sentencing hearing who testified that they made

trips to Philadelphia for the purpose of purchasing drugs for Thomas.

Furthermore, there was no error in approximating the total amount of

drugs purchased in twenty trips to Philadelphia based on the amount

of drugs purchased during five trips to Philadelphia. The court may

_________________________________________________________________

*In his appellate brief, Thomas contends under the"Summary of

Argument" section that the district court erred by enhancing his base

offense level for being a manager. However, Thomas fails to expand or

even mention this contention in the "Argument" section. Because

Thomas did not assert any argument supporting this issue, the issue is

considered abandoned. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); 11126 Baltimore

Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George's County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 993 n.7 (4th

Cir. 1995).

 2
rely on evidence that demonstrates a "sufficient indicia of reliability

to support its probable accuracy." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 6A1.3(a), p.s. (1995); see United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016,

1021 (4th Cir. 1992).

We also review the district court's determination not to reduce the

base offense level for acceptance of responsibility for clear error. See

United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1279 (4th Cir. 1995). "The

district court `is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility,' and its determination`is entitled to great deference on review.'" Id. (quoting USSG§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.5)). In

order to receive the reduction for acceptance of responsibility a defendant must "affirmatively accept[ ] personal responsibility for his criminal conduct." United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir.

1996). "[A] defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility." USSG § 3E1.1

comment. (n.1).

The district court's finding that Thomas was not credible with

regard to his contention that his involvement in the drug dealing operation was significantly less than demonstrated by the testimony of

others was not clearly erroneous. The court found other witnesses to

be more credible. Because this finding is not clearly erroneous, it will

not be disturbed on appeal.

We affirm Thomas' 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3