UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-4745
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT OSCAR RANDOLPH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-6-B)
Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: December 2, 1997
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory M. Stewart, STEWART LAW OFFICES, P.C., Norton, Virginia,
for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick
A. Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Oscar Randolph appeals from his conviction and sentence
for possession of a firearm following a felony conviction in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994). Specifically, Randolph contends
that the district court erred in denying his request for a reduc-
tion under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995), for
acceptance of responsibility where he admitted to possession of the
firearm but denied firing it, running from the police, throwing the
gun away during the police chase, and threatening his wife and her
family if she testified against him. The district court found
Randolph's denials of these actions to be unbelievable, and for
that reason not an acceptance of responsibility sufficient to
justify denial of a USSG § 3E1.1 reduction. Our review reveals that
this decision was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Myers, 66 F.3d 1364, 1372 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that sentencing
court may look beyond facts that constitute conviction even if
factors are insufficiently relevant to increase sentence). We
further note that Randolph received an enhancement under USSG §
3C1.1, rendering a § 3E1.1 reduction generally inappropriate. See
USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). Accordingly, we affirm Randolph's
conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2