UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4502
DANETTE LAVAINE MAYFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-98-164-V)
Submitted: April 13, 2000
Decided: April 21, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Christopher F. Cowan, COWAN, NORTH & LAFRATTA, L.L.P.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Danette Lavaine Mayfield appeals a sentence imposed upon her
guilty plea to a two count indictment charging her with conspiracy to
distribute certain illegal narcotics and conspiracy to launder money.
She claims that the district court erred in imposing a two level role-
in-the-offense increase under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3B1.1(c) (1998). We affirm.
Mayfield did not object at sentencing to the enhancement, despite
notice that it was recommended in the presentence report ("PSR"), so
our review is for "plain error." See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993). The PSR contained clear and uncontradicted evi-
dence that Mayfield was a "manager . . . of one or more other partici-
pants" and that she "exercised management responsibility over the
property . . . of a criminal organization." USSG§ 3B1.1, comment.
(n.2). According to the PSR, Mayfield acted as a point person for a
drug distribution network. As such, she took and filled orders for
cocaine from several other coconspirators, including her brother, who
would then deliver the drugs to third parties. She also collected
money from her coconspirators and forwarded it to the leaders of the
organization. This evidence was sufficient to show that Mayfield
managed the financial obligations of and flow of drugs to other
coconspirators. See United States v. Kincaid, 964 F.2d 325, 329 (4th
Cir. 1992) (finding enhancement proper where defendant exercised
control over coconspirators regarding distribution of drugs and finan-
cial matters).
Accordingly, we find no plain error, and therefore, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the deicisonal process.
AFFIRMED
2