UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5688

NAPOLEON GOODSON, IV,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-93-471)

Submitted: July 30, 1996

Decided: August 12, 1996

Before WIDENER, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hammond A. Beale, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret B. Seymour, United States Attorney, Miller W. Shealy, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Napoleon Goodson, IV, was convicted of numerous firearms and drug distribution charges after entering into a plea agreement with the Government. After Goodson entered his plea, the

Government administered a polygraph examination required by the

agreement. However, the Government ended the exam after administering only two of the three parts of a complete exam, asserting that

Goodson's scores established deception. The Government then

refused to perform its obligations under the agreement on the basis

that Goodson substantially breached the agreement by failing the

exam. Goodson now appeals, claiming that the Government breached

the agreement by failing to administer a complete polygraph examination. Finding no error, we affirm.

According to the plea agreement, the Government's obligations

were "expressly contingent, however, upon the Defendant's passing

the polygraph examination(s) to the Government's satisfaction." A

polygraph examination consists of three parts: the pretest, the main

test, and the post test. The pretest allows the examiner to explain to

the subject the nature of the test and how it is conducted. The main

test allows the examiner to actually question the subject and record

scores indicating truthfulness and deceptiveness. The post test allows

the examiner to question the subject about scores indicating deception

and get the subject to confess.

The Government ended Goodson's test after administering the pretest and main test because the main test scores strongly indicated

deception. Goodson claims the Government should have conducted

the post test before deciding that he breached the plea agreement.

However, Goodson has not established the Government's breach

by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Conner, 930

F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 958 (1991). Both

Goodson's and the Government's experts agreed that the post test

portion of the exam has no bearing on the actual scores attained from

the main test quantifying truthfulness and deceptiveness. The scores

are attained solely from the main test. Further, the Government evi-

 2
denced its good faith belief that Goodson was deceptive by introducing uncontested evidence that he lied to the Government both before

and after the examination.

Accordingly, we affirm Goodson's conviction and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3