
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Dean GIBSON, a/k/a Dean Forney, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4182.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 16, 2003.
    Allen E. Shoenberger, Loyola Law School, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Lewis Dean Gibson appeals from his amended judgment imposed after re-sentencing in accordance with oui' opinion affirming his conviction for violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999) and vacating and remanding the case for resentencing in accordance with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gibson received a 240-month term of imprisonment on re-sentencing.

Gibson challenges his conviction and sentence arguing that he suffered a constitutional violation by the indictment’s failure to charge a specific drug quantity and the failure of facts used to determine his sentence to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold that Gibson’s 240-month conviction and sentence do not violate the principles of Apprendi and its progeny, including Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625,122 S.Ct. 1781,1785, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002); United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-202 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001).

Finally, Gibson challenged the district court’s determination of drug quantity. We find that the district court did not clearly err in its determination. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.1999) (clear error standard of review); United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989) (witness credibility is not subject to appellate review).

We therefore affirm the judgment. 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.  