UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4113
DARRYL LEE BOSWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.
(CR-97-185)
Submitted: October 30, 1998
Decided: December 2, 1998
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric David Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J.
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
lee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Lee Boswell was convicted of four counts of distribution of
cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1) (1994).
He appeals his sentence, contending that the court erred in imposing
a two-level enhancement in offense level under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997)* for possession of a firearm.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On four separate occasions, Randy Johnson, a Government infor-
mant, purchased cocaine from Boswell at Boswell's home. On two of
those occasions, Johnson observed Boswell retrieve the cocaine from
Boswell's upstairs bedroom. Subsequently, Boswell was arrested and
police officers searched his home. In Boswell's upstairs bedroom,
police officers seized a .9mm semi-automatic pistol.
At sentencing, Boswell objected to the two-level enhancement
under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The court stated that:
I would find from this evidence that by everybody's testi-
mony the gun was in the house at the time that the Johnson
sale on the 28th took place. There is testimony, as to the
activities that took place, earlier than that. There is testi-
mony of the drug residue in and about the house. And the
gun was found in the bedroom in a drawer on August the
22nd.
The question then comes to the Court to say is it improbable
that the gun was used in connection with the drug activities.
The Court finds from this evidence that it is not improbable
_________________________________________________________________
*Under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), the court may impose a two-level
enhancement in offense level for possessing a dangerous weapon.
2
that it was used in connection with the drug activities; and
for that reason, finds that the enhancement is appropriate.
(J.A. at 123-24).
We review the trial court's decision to enhance the offense level
under § 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error. See United States v. Harris, 128
F.3d 850, 852 (4th Cir. 1997). The enhancement "should be applied
if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the
weapon was connected with the offense." USSG§ 2D1.1, comment.
(n.3).
The proximity of narcotics to the weapon is sufficient to warrant
an enhancement under this subsection. See Harris , 128 F.3d at 852.
It is not required that there be proof of concurrent acts, such as active
employment of the weapon during a drug transaction, in order to sus-
tain the enhancement. See United States v. Johnson, 943 F.2d 383,
386 (4th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Nor is it required that the weapon
be in plain view. See, e.g., United States v. Hunter, 19 F.3d 895, 896
(4th Cir. 1994) (handgun hidden under front seat of car). Mere pos-
session of the weapon during the commission of the offense is all that
is needed. Id.
It is undisputed that a handgun was found in a room in Boswell's
home. There is also evidence that Boswell stored and distributed
cocaine from the same room. The court's finding that Boswell's gun
was present during at least one of the illegal transactions is not clearly
erroneous. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the court's finding that
it was not improbable that the weapon was connected with the
offense.
We therefore affirm Boswell's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3