UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4446
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GUISEPPE L. WALLACE, JR., a/k/a Little Joe,
a/k/a Little,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-02-101)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Schles, STOWERS & ASSOCIATES, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John L. File,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Guiseppe L. Wallace, Jr., appeals his guilty-plea
conviction to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
On appeal, Wallace asserts that the district court erred
by applying a two-level firearm enhancement pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2001). The Guidelines
provide for a two-level increase in offense level for drug offenses
“[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.”
USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). “The adjustment should be applied if the
weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon
was connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment.
(n.3). The district court’s enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) is
reviewed for clear error. United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d
228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001). After careful review of the record, we
find no error in the district court’s application of the
enhancement. Id.; United States v. Kimberlin, 18 F.3d 1156, 1160
(4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Mena-Robles, 4 F.3d 1026, 1036
(1st Cir. 1993). Moreover, we reject Wallace’s contention that the
district court’s application of the Guidelines created an
unconstitutional presumption that possession of a firearm is
reasonably foreseeable in every drug trafficking case. USSG §
2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Wallace’s conviction and 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 -