UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY MAYS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan,
District Judge. (CR-95-70)
Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Mays pled guilty to four counts of distributing cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996),
and was sentenced to a term of 78 months imprisonment. Mays's only
contention in this appeal is that the sentencing court erred by
refusing to reduce his offense level based on acceptance of respon-
sibility because of his continued drug use while on pretrial re-
lease. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual
§ 3E1.1(a) (Nov. 1994). It is undisputed that Mays submitted seven
positive urine screens for marijuana, one of which was also posi-
tive for cocaine use, during a period of approximately two months
while he was on pretrial release.
We find that the district court properly denied a reduction
for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 based on Mays's
continued drug use following his arrest and prior to sentencing.
See United States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336, 1338-39 (4th Cir.
1994). Moreover, Mays cites no authority for his position that his
continued drug use should be excused because of his addiction to
drugs, and we find such position lacking in merit. Accordingly, the
order of the district court is affirmed. 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
2