UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 informant, 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 testimony 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 testimony 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 sustain 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 possession 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3