UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 96-4667

CALVIN D. LITTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-32)

Submitted: March 27, 1997

Decided: April 8, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Philip
J. Combs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Calvin D. Litton appeals the thirty-month sentence imposed upon
his guilty plea to possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, 26
U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1994). Litton contends that the district court clearly
erred when it refused to grant him an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1.*

Litton entered a bar in Charleston, West Virginia with a sawed-off
shotgun. Witnesses stated that Litton removed the gun from beneath
his jacket and laid it on the bar. The bar's manager placed the gun in
the office, advising Litton that guns were not permitted in the bar. Lit-
ton then offered to trade the gun to the manager. When the manager
refused, Litton threatened to open fire in the bar. The manager called
police and refused to return the gun to Litton.

During the presentence investigation, Litton told the probation offi-
cer that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense. Litton claimed
that he found the shotgun and jacket outside the bar. He said he
entered the bar and asked someone if he knew who might have lost
the gun.

At sentencing, the district court refused to give Litton an adjust-
ment for acceptance of responsibility. The court based its refusal on
the discrepancy between eyewitness accounts of events and Litton's
version of what happened. The court found that Litton was not truth-
ful with the probation officer in describing his participation in the
offense. Given the discrepancy between the two accounts, the district
court's refusal to give Litton the adjustment was not clearly errone-
ous.
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1995). Litton was sentenced on August 20, 1996.

                     2
Litton also contends that the district court should have given him
advance notice that it did not intend to make the adjustment. While
the guidelines provide that the court should notify the parties in
advance of sentencing of its tentative findings regarding the presen-
tence report, USSG § 6A1.3, p.s., tentative findings are not necessary
in all cases. United States v. Walker, 901 F.2d 21, 22 (4th Cir. 1990).
If the defendant has the opportunity at sentencing to present evidence
and to be heard on objections to the presentence report, the district
court's failure to provide the defendant with tentative findings is not
reversible error. Id.; see also United States v. Francisco, 35 F.3d 116,
120-21 (4th Cir. 1994).

Litton's counsel received the presentence report prior to sentencing
and was alerted to the discrepancy between what eyewitnesses had
told the probation officer and Litton's version of events. At sentenc-
ing, counsel argued extensively in favor of the adjustment, claiming
that any discrepancy between the eyewitnesses' and Litton's version
of events was due to Litton's intoxication at the time of the offense.
Under Francisco and Walker, there was no reversible error.

We therefore affirm the sentence. 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

                    3
