IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30847
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AARON AUGUSTUS, also known as
ERIC AUGUSTUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CR-9
- - - - - - - - - -
November 24, 1997
Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Aaron Augustus appeals his sentence for his guilty
plea conviction for various drug-related crimes and his jury
conviction for carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking
offense. Augustus argues that the district court erred in
denying him a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility based on his falsely denying possession of a
firearm. To support his argument, Augustus contends that various
sections of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines implicitly prohibit
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 96-30847
-2-
the district court from considering any relevant conduct related
to his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for purposes of determining whether
he accepted responsibility for his drug convictions. Augustus’s
arguments are unpersuasive. Because Augustus did not object to
the denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the
foregoing grounds, we review for plain error. See United States
v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)(citing
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 ( 1993 )), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995).
Inasmuch as Augustus’s denial that he was responsible for
the two kilograms of cocaine seized by Texas authorities would
solely support the district court’s determination that he was not
entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility the
district court did not commit plain error. Further, because the
law is not clear regarding whether the district court may
consider acts giving rise to a 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction
as relevant conduct for purposes of denying a downward adjustment
for acceptance of responsibility on a drug trafficking
conviction, “any error on the part of the trial court could not
be plain.” See Calverley, 37 F.3d at 165.
AFFIRMED.