UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-4815

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

PHILIP OLUKAYOD KUFORIJI, a/k/a George Hohman, a/k/a Lade Phillips, a/k/a Philip Olukayode, a/k/a Charles Onojaife, a/k/a Charles Onojafe, a/k/a Biane Charles Egbarin, a/k/a Philip Kuto, a/k/a Philip Kifo, a/k/a Omolade D.

Kassim, a/k/a Philip Kutoriji, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 96-177-CCB)

Submitted: August 10, 2000 Decided: September 8, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph O. Gregory, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Philip Olukayod Kuforiji was indicted for conspiracy to launder money instruments and three substantive counts of money laundering. Two weeks into his and his co-defendants’ trial, Kuforiji pled guilty to Count 1, the conspiracy count, pursuant to a plea agreement. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West Supp. 2000). He was sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment.

On appeal, he alleges that the district court erred by finding him responsible for $2 million and thus increasing his base offense level by six under U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, § 2S1.1(b)(2)(G) (1998). We do not find that the district court clearly erred in its factual determination. See United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 1989). The record supports the district court’s finding and indeed Kuforiji himself stipulated to the $2 million dollar amount and six-level increase. Accord- ingly, we affirm Kuforiji’s sentence. We dispense with oral argu- ment 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