UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6487
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BILLY JEROME PEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-96-398, CA-98-719-2)
Submitted: July 27, 1999 Decided: August 17, 1999
Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Jerome Pee, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Billy Jerome Pee appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed
the record and the transcript of the district court’s evidentiary
hearing on Pee’s claims and find no error. The quantity and pack-
aging of the heroin possessed by Pee were consistent with distribu-
tion. See United States v. Fisher, 912 F.2d 728, 730 (4th Cir.
1990); see also United States v. Bergodere, 40 F.3d 512, 518 (1st
Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Pee’s counsel acted well within the
bounds established for competent counsel when he advised Pee to
plead guilty. Additionally, we find Pee’s claim that his counsel
should have moved for a substantial assistance departure lacking in
merit. The record is clear that Pee provided the Government with
no relevant assistance. Hence, a substantial assistance motion was
not warranted. Finally, because Pee’s ineffective assistance claims
are without merit, we also reject his claim that his plea agreement
was rendered unknowing and involuntary based on counsel’s alleged
ineffectiveness. Accordingly, we deny Pee’s motion for a certifi-
cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2