UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4551 LARRY CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-361-A) Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: October 2, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Larry Chin, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Larry Chin was convicted by a jury of Count II, distribution of her- oin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994); Count III, use of juveniles in the distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 861(a)(1) (1994); Count IV, carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1997); Count V, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.§ 848(a) (West Supp. 1997); and Count VI, importation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(2) (West 1981 & Supp. 1997). The dis- trict court sentenced Chin to 264 months imprisonment on Counts II, III, V, and VI and 60 consecutive months on Count IV.

On appeal, we affirmed Chin's convictions under Counts II, III, IV, and V, but vacated his conviction for Count VI and remanded to the district court for resentencing. See United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 1996). On remand, the district court, by order, vacated Chin's sentence under Count VI and resentenced him on the remain- ing four convictions to an identical term of imprisonment. Chin appeals. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Chin, No. CA-94-361-A (E.D. Va. June 12, 1996). We do not, however, address numerous issues raised by Chin in his informal brief, because the issues were not before the dis- trict court on remand. See United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that the mandate rule "forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court" and "forecloses litigation of issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal or otherwise waived, for example because they were not raised in the district court"). 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