UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALICIA PRATT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-02-165)
Submitted: July 22, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacqueline A. Hallinan, HALLINAN LAW OFFICES, P.L.L.C., Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
Travis N. Gery, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following her guilty plea to one count of aiding and abetting
distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), Alicia Pratt was sentenced to
seventy-eight months in prison. Pratt timely appealed.
Pratt challenges the two-point enhancement imposed pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2002), which
applies if a firearm was possessed during the commission of the
offense. Pratt contends that the enhancement was inappropriate
because the firearms found in her apartment and upon which the
enhancement were based, belonged to her co-conspirator and were not
reasonably foreseeable to her because she had told him not to bring
guns into the apartment and she was unaware of their presence. We
have held that a defendant may be accountable for firearms
possessed by another person involved with her in a joint criminal
activity concerning drug trafficking without requiring that the
government establish that the defendant knew the weapons were
present, because the presence of weapons in this situation is
reasonably foreseeable. United States v. Kimberlin, 18 F.3d 1156,
1160 (4th Cir. 1994). Under the circumstances in this case, we
find that the district court did not clearly err in imposing the
enhancement. See United States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852 (4th
Cir. 1997) (standard of review).
2
Accordingly, we affirm Pratt’s 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