UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4861

THOMAS KENT JAMERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.

James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-96-70063)

Submitted: April 28, 1998

Decided: June 18, 1998

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James G. Hunter, III, O'KEEFFE & SPIES, Lynchburg, Virginia, for

Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P.

Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Thomas Kent Jamerson was convicted pursuant to his

guilty plea of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. On

appeal he alleges that the district court erred in its determination of

the amount of drugs attributable to him and for increasing his base

offense level for possession of a firearm pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1.1

Finding no error, we affirm.

Jamerson was part of a loose-knit conspiracy which distributed

drugs in Central Virginia, and he purchased cocaine for both personal

use and resale. Two of Jamerson's co-conspirators ("Gallier" and

"Powell") provided statements concerning the amount of cocaine purchased by Jamerson and stated that Jamerson always carried a firearm

during drug transactions.2

We review the district court's factual determination concerning the

amount of drugs attributable to Jamerson for clear error and find

none. See United States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3309 (U.S. Oct. 21, 1996) (No.

95-9398); United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994).

Jamerson bears the burden of proving that the information in the presentence report is incorrect, and mere objections are insufficient. See

United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). We find

that Jamerson fails to meet this burden. The sole basis for Jamerson's

objection on this issue is his belief that Powell was not a reliable witness because she was a heavy drug user. He asserts, therefore, that he

should not be held accountable for any amounts identified by Powell.

_________________________________________________________________

1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997).

2 The investigating FBI agent also testified that Jamerson carried a firearm during drug transactions.

 2
Credibility issues, however, are decided by the fact finder, and the

district court resolved this issue against Jamerson. 3

We review the district court's factual findings concerning the

§ 2D1.1 enhancement for clear error and find none here.4 A two-level

increase in Jamerson's base offense level for possession of a firearm

was appropriate unless it was "clearly improbable" that the weapon

was connected with the offense.5 In the present case, two coconspirators and the investigating agent stated that Jamerson carried

a firearm during drug transactions. Since Jamerson fails to provide

any evidence to refute these statements, we find that the district

court's decision was not clearly erroneous.

We therefore affirm Jamerson's conviction and sentence. 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

_________________________________________________________________

3 We note that Jamerson provided no direct evidence refuting Powell's

statements.

4 See United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1237-38 (4th

Cir. 1989).

5 See USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3).

 3