
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven McKELVEY, a/k/a C, a/k/a Custard, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven McKelvey, a/k/a C, a/k/a Custard, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 01-4621, 01-4701.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2002.
    Decided May 24, 2002.
    Andrew D. Grimes, Summerville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    No. 01-4621 affirmed and No. 01-4701 dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Steven McKelvey was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to knowingly possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999), and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp.2001), and aiding and abetting possession of crack cocaine, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 1999 & Supp.2001). He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy count and ten years imprisonment on the possession count, to be served concurrently.

In No. 01-4621, McKelvey contends that the Government presented insufficient evidence to prove he was involved in a conspiracy rather than a simple “buyer-seller” relationship, and failed to prove he possessed five grams or more of cocaine base on March 22, 2000. Based on our review of the joint appendix, these claims are meritless. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 484-85 (4th Cir.1993) (discussing distinction between conspiracy and buyer-seller relationship); 18 U.S.C.A. § 2. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

In No. 01-4701, McKelvey filed a notice of appeal addressing the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). His counseled brief abandons this appeal as without merit. Moreover, Rule 59(e) does not apply to criminal proceedings. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

We affirm Washington’s convictions and sentences. We dismiss McKelvey’s appeal of the motion for reconsideration. 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 in the decisional process.

No. 01-4621 — AFFIRMED.

No. 01-4701 — DISMISSED.  