UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4208

RODNEY THOMPSON, a/k/a Main,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-97-4)

Submitted: August 22, 2000

Decided: October 11, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Barbara Hudson, Evanston, Illinois, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch,

Jr., United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Thompson appeals his 120-month sentence, imposed upon

re-sentencing, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.

On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in determining the

drug amount attributable to him under relevant conduct. We affirm

the sentence.

The district court may consider a wide range of factors in calculating a defendant's sentence. The court may take relevant conduct into

account in determining a defendant's sentence whether or not the

defendant has been convicted of the charges constituting the relevant

conduct. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3

(1998); United States v. Jones, 31 F.3d 1304, 1316 (4th Cir. 1994).

Relevant conduct includes all acts of the defendant, acts aided and

abetted by him, and acts for which he is otherwise accountable that

were in furtherance of the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(A).

In calculating drug amounts, the court may consider any relevant

information, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of

reliability to support its probable accuracy. See United States v.

Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1021 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting U.S.S.G.

§ 6A1.3 (1991)). Consistent with this policy, hearsay alone can provide sufficiently reliable evidence of drug quantity. See id.

The Government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of drugs attributable to a particular defendant for

sentencing purposes. See United States v. McDonald, 61 F.3d 248,

255 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court's factual findings will be

upheld absent clear error. See 18 U.S.C.A.§ 3742(e) (West Supp.

2000); United States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir. 1996).

We find that the Government produced sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that Thompson was responsible for

73.21 grams of crack cocaine. Despite the apparent plan/scheme that

existed between Skipper and Thompson, the court held Thompson

 2
responsible for only a portion of Skipper's sales in its drug weight

determination. The court included Skipper's drug sales from the time

Thompson was charged in Count Two until the conclusion of Cunningham's buys from Skipper. Thompson was an adult on the dates

of all of Skipper's transactions for which he was held accountable. To

the extent that Thompson challenges Cunningham's credibility, such

determination is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v.

Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).*

Accordingly, we affirm Thompson's 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*We have considered the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct.

2348 (2000), and find that, because Smith received sentences of imprisonment and terms of supervised release that did not exceed the statutory

maximums set out in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999), no plain

error occurred. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, No. 99-4098, 2000

WL 988128, at *6 (8th Cir. July 18, 2000).

 3