UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 99-4430
CALVIN A. WATSON, a/k/a Omar
Headley,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-7)
Submitted: November 30, 1999
Decided: January 6, 2000
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Roy D. Bradley, BRADLEY LAW FIRM, P.C., Madison, Virginia,
for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Calvin A. Watson appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction
for his role in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Watson contends that the district court erred
in calculating the drug amount appropriate for Watson's relevant con-
duct for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595,
606 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3790 (U.S.
June 15, 1998) (No. 97-9085). Watson also suggests that the court's
conclusion that he employed a firearm in connection with the drug
offense was in error. See United States v. Apple , 915 F.2d 899, 914
(4th Cir. 1990). Finally, Watson claims that he was entitled to a
reduction in his Offense Level for his minimal role in the offense. See
Love, 134 F.3d at 606. Finding no merit to any of these contentions,
we affirm the district court's sentence.
We have reviewed the record and the evidence before the district
court at sentencing and find that there was no reversible error in the
court's determination of the amount of drugs attributable to Watson
for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Williams, 977 F. 2d 866,
870 (4th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585,
593 (4th Cir. 1998). With respect to the firearm, Watson failed to
show that it was "clearly improbable" that his possession of a Ruger
9mm was not connected with his drug offense. See United States v.
Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852-53 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, in light of Wat-
son's active role in the conspiracy, and the significant income he
derived therefrom, there was no clear error on the part of the district
court in declining to award Watson a reduction for his role in the con-
spiracy. See Love, 134 F.3d at 606.
In the absence of any reversible error at sentencing, Watson's con-
viction and sentence are hereby affirmed. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
3