UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4706
JOHN THOMAS GARRISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-83)
Submitted: March 9, 1999
Decided: April 2, 1999
Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Roy D. Bradley, BRADLEY LAW FIRM, P.C., Madison, Virginia,
for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Ray B.
Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
John Thomas Garrison appeals his 120-month sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in viola-
tion of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). He asserts on appeal that the Govern-
ment failed to prove at sentencing that the drugs were crack cocaine.
Finding no plain error, we affirm.
Relying on United States v. James, 78 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1996),
Garrison contends that the Government failed to prove at sentencing
that the drugs were crack cocaine because there was no evidence pre-
sented that the drugs were processed with sodium bicarbonate.
Because Garrison failed to raise this issue below, he has forfeited
review, absent plain error. See United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889,
900 (4th Cir. 1998). His reliance on James is misplaced. Unlike in
James, the evidence in this case is unambiguous--the record discloses
no indication that the cocaine attributed to Garrison was any form of
cocaine base other than crack. We therefore find no plain error.
Accordingly, we affirm Garrison's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.*
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*In light of our determination that argument is unnecessary, we deny
Appellant's motion for oral argument.
2