UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 00-4117

JOHN HOWARD HUDSON, a/k/a Nort,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-48)

Submitted: August 10, 2000

Decided: September 20, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jane Moran, JANE MORAN LAW OFFICES, Williamson, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General,
James S. Reynolds, Chief, Terrorism & Violent Crime Section, John
W. Van Lonkhuyzen, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Howard Hudson pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy
involving methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamine,
21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994) (Count One), and using and carrying a firearm
during a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000)
(Count Nine). The district court imposed a sentence of 180 months
imprisonment and five years supervised release for the drug conspir-
acy, to be followed by a consecutive five-year sentence for the
§ 924(c) conviction, with a three-year concurrent sentence of super-
vised release. Hudson appeals his sentence, contending that the dis-
trict court plainly erred in making an adjustment for obstruction of
justice. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1998). We
affirm.*

One of Hudson's co-defendants, Overton Wayne Pauley, was pros-
ecuted for murdering two people. Investigators received information
that Hudson had loaned Pauley a shotgun on the night of the murders.
Although the victims were shot with a different type of firearm, Pau-
ley and his accomplice reportedly carried two weapons, one of which
was a shotgun. When Hudson was interviewed by investigators, he
denied loaning Pauley a shotgun. At sentencing, Hudson admitted that
he had in fact given Pauley a shotgun on the night of the murders, and
had falsely denied doing so. Hudson's attorney conceded that his
untruthful statements to investigators warranted an adjustment for
obstruction of justice. The district court then made a finding, indepen-
_________________________________________________________________

*We have considered the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct.
2348, 2000 WL 807189 (2000), and find that, because Hudson received
a sentence of imprisonment that did not exceed the statutory maximum
set out in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999), no plain error
occurred. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado , ___ F.3d ___, 2000 WL
988128, at *6 (8th Cir. July 18, 2000).

                    2
dent of counsel's statement, that Hudson had attempted to obstruct
justice by lying to investigators about the shotgun.

While Hudson now seeks to challenge the court's ruling, we find
that he has waived the right to raise the issue by abandoning his
objection to the adjustment at sentencing. See United States v. Valenz-
uela, 150 F.3d 664, 667 (7th Cir. 1998) (waiver of objection to sen-
tence based on crack); United States v. Newman , 148 F.3d 871, 878-
79 (7th Cir. 1998) (waiver of argument for minor role reduction);
United States v. Masters, 118 F.3d 1524, 1526 (11th Cir. 1997)
(waiver of objection to upward departure on impermissible ground).
Hudson argues that he did not intentionally waive his objection to the
adjustment, and has merely forfeited it, making review for plain error
possible. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). How-
ever, even if we were to treat the issue as forfeited, rather than
waived, we could not say that the district court plainly erred in mak-
ing the adjustment.

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
4
