UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                        No. 97-4182
JEROME DERRICK HARRIS, a/k/a
Michael Braxton, a/k/a Rome, a/k/a
Jerome Privott,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CR-96-260-PJM)

Argued: March 4, 1999

Decided: April 16, 1999

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Navron Ponds, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. David
Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Derrick Harris appeals his sentence for conspiracy to dis-
tribute and to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine
base, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1998), arguing that the dis-
trict court erred in its application of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines by (1) finding that he obstructed justice, see U.S. Sentenc-
ing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1995); (2) failing to grant him a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1; (3)
imposing an enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon, see
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1); (4) finding that he was a leader or organizer
of a drug conspiracy that involved five or more participants, see
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); and (5) determining his criminal history, see
U.S.S.G. Ch. 4, Pt. A. We affirm.

I.

The district court based the obstruction of justice enhancement on
a determination that Harris misrepresented his employment history to
the probation officer who prepared the presentence report. Because
the district court concluded that Harris had obstructed justice, the
court also refused to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibil-
ity.

The enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon was based
on evidence that a weapon which tested positive for cocaine residue
was recovered from Harris' residence, where Harris and his cocon-
spirators converted cocaine into cocaine base. The enhancement also
was based on evidence of the recovery of another firearm from a hid-
den compartment in Harris' jeep.

The district court based its finding that Harris was a leader or orga-
nizer of a drug conspiracy involving five or more participants in part

                    2
on evidence that at least three people made drug deliveries for Harris
and that Harris directed another to install hidden compartments in his
vehicles to aid in drug trafficking.

Finally, the district court added two points to Harris' criminal his-
tory because Harris committed the instant offense while a violation
warrant from a prior sentence was outstanding. See U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.2(m). The court also added one criminal history point because
Harris committed the instant offense within two years of his release
from a prior federal drug sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e).

II.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and the parties' briefs, and
after careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, we
conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in
deciding the issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

                    3
