UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4814

GREG HATCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.

Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-96-12)

Submitted: June 19, 1997

Decided: July 3, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Cipriani, CIPRIANI & PAULL, L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney,

Thomas O. Mucklow, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Greg Hatcher pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine within 1000

feet of a school, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 860 (West 1981 & Supp. 1997).

He appeals his 262-month sentence, contending that the district

court

clearly erred in awarding him a 2-level aggravated role adjustment

under USSG § 3B1.1(c),1 and in determining that he distributed 170

grams of crack, USSG § 2D1.2. We review both factual questions

under the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v.

McDonald,

61 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir. 1995) (drug amount is factual question);

United States v. Harriott, 976 F.2d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 1992)

(defendant's role in offense is factual question). Finding no clear

error, we

affirm.

At Hatcher's sentencing hearing, a detective assigned to the area

drug task force testified that confidential informants bought 1.03

grams of crack from Hatcher in two controlled buys and that, when

he was arrested, Hatcher possessed a handgun which he said he

obtained in a trade for two $50 pieces of crack. The detective also

related information received from informants who had bought crack

from Hatcher on numerous occasions. The detective explained why he

regarded each informant as a reliable source of information and how

he estimated that Hatcher sold them a total of 169.186 grams of

crack.

Hatcher testified in his own behalf. He admitted selling crack to

most

of the informants, but in smaller amounts. 2 With this information

before it, the district court did not clearly err in finding that

the government's hearsay evidence was reliable and that the government had

_________________________________________________________________

1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1995).

2 In his written statement to the probation officer, Hatcher

maintained

that much of what he sold was either "pressed powder" or Procaine

which he falsely represented to be crack.

2
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Hatcher distributed

170 grams of crack.

The court also found that Hatcher was a manager or supervisor in

an offense which involved fewer than five participants and was not

otherwise extensive, USSG § 3B1.1(c), on the basis of the

detective's

testimony that Hatcher used several people as runners to facilitate

his

drug sales, and that Deon Lewis functioned as his bodyguard.

Hatcher

denied having a bodyguard and said that he utilized runners who

worked in a certain area for any drug dealers who were present, but

had no special relationship with any of them. He denied that any of

the informants sold crack for him. We find that, because a number

of

reliable informants described Deon Lewis as Hatcher's bodyguard,

the district court did not clearly err in finding that the

adjustment was

warranted for that reason alone.

The sentence is therefore 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