United States v. Hause

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 01-4326 PAUL ANTHONY HAUSE, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-00-47) Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: December 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Mark Jenkinson, DOUGLAS & JENKINSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 UNITED STATES v. HAUSE OPINION PER CURIAM: Paul Hause appeals from the twenty-one month sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994). Hause argues that the district court should have reduced his offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2000), because he possessed the firearm for collection purposes only. Hause testified that he received the gun in 1996 as partial payment on an automobile which he sold. Hause pawned the gun twice, in late 1996 and in early 1997, and did not redeem it after the second time. A firearms expert testified that the gun was an inexpensive handgun and that it was not the sort of firearm that would be considered a col- lectible. Based on this evidence, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in denying Hause an adjustment under § 2K2.1(b)(2). United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir. 1989). Accord- ingly, we affirm his 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