                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            _____________________

                                 No. 95-40427
                               Summary Calendar
                            _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                     versus

PEDRO AGUILAR, JR.,

                                                         Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Eastern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 1:94-CR-94
_________________________________________________________________

                          April 16, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Pedro     Aguilar,     Jr.,   appeals    his   sentence   of    34    months'

imprisonment     for   possession    of     marijuana   with   the     intent     to

distribute     it.     He   argues   that    the    district   court      erred   in

including information as relevant conduct and by enhancing his

offense level for possession of a firearm.

     We have reviewed the record and the brief, and we conclude

that the district court did not err.            The information objected to

as relevant conduct was either harmlessly included or included


     *
      Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
without clear error.    See United States v. Kings, 981 F.2d 790, 795

n.11 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2450 (1993); United States

v. Bethley, 973 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507

U.S. 935 (1993).       The enhancement for Aguilar's possession of

firearms was also not clearly erroneous.     United States v. Paulk,

917 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir. 1990).

                                                    A F F I R M E D.




                                 -2-
