UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-40655
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MOSES ROGERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
( 9-95-CR-26-1 )
__________________________________________
February 18, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Moses Rogers appeals his sentence after being convicted on a
guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He
challenges his base offense level; the two-level increase for
possession of a firearm and the two-level increase for reckless
endangerment; and the denial of a three-level decrease for
acceptance of responsibility.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
The district court did not clearly err either in calculating
Rogers’ base offense level by including all drug quantities
comprising his relevant conduct, United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d
114, 118, 120 (5th cir. 1995), or in finding that Rogers’
possession of a firearm was relevant conduct. United States v.
Paulk, 917 F.2d 879, 884 (5th Cir. 1990). And, the court did not
commit reversible error by finding that Rogers’ reckless
endangerment was part of the same course of conduct as the offense
of conviction. See Vital 68 F.3d at 120. Finally, it did not err
in denying Rogers a decrease for acceptance of responsibility,
because Rogers continued to engage in the same course of criminal
conduct and he contested his involvement in offenses constituting
relevant conduct. See United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860, 866
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2151 (1994).
Accordingly, Rogers’ sentence is
AFFIRMED.