UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 98-4930

DEMARIOUS D. AUSTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-156)

Submitted: July 30, 1999

Decided: September 17, 1999

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

C. David Whaley, Anthony G. Spencer, MORCHOWER, LUXTON
& WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Demarious D. Austin appeals his convictions and sentence follow-
ing a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994) and possession of a firearm as a
drug user in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(3) (West Supp. 1999).
Austin contents that: (1) the district court erred in increasing his sen-
tence offense level for possession of firearms in connection with
another felony offense; and (2) the court erred in failing to reduce his
offense level for lawful possession of firearms solely for sporting pur-
poses. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find that the evidence was sufficient to show that the firearms
in question were possessed in connection with the offense of posses-
sion of marijuana with intent to distribute, thus warranting the adjust-
ment on that basis. See U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2K2.1(b)(5) (1997); United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 654
(4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d 685, 686-87 (8th
Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1398 (1998) (No. 97-8157);
United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003-04 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in applying the
adjustment. See Nale, 101 F.3d at 1003.

Moreover, the district court denied Austin a reduction under USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(2) based upon its finding that Austin did not possess the
firearms in question solely for hunting purposes. We agree with the
court's conclusion that Austin was not entitled to an adjustment for
use of a firearm solely for sporting purposes or collection. However,
our conclusion is based upon the more fundamental reason that USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(2) does not apply to defendants, like Austin, who are
"subject to" USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4) or § 2K2.1(a)(5). See USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(2) (precluding application of reduction for "defendants
subject to subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5)").

                     2
Accordingly, we affirm Austin's convictions and sentence. We dis-
pense 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
