UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4365

WINCHAUS ANGELO HAYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-98-91)

Submitted: October 29, 1999

Decided: November 18, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Winchaus Angelo Hayes appeals his conviction and thirty-sevenmonth sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of possession

of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West Supp. 1999). On appeal, Hayes contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress

the ammunition, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and

that the court erred in calculating his criminal history category. Finding no error, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

Hayes moved to suppress the ammunition on the ground that there

was no articulable suspicion to support the officer's pat-down of

Hayes. On appeal, Hayes presents a new argument as to why the district court should have suppressed the ammunition--that the officers

did not have probable cause to arrest him. Hayes'"failure to preserve

the issue properly amounts to waiver under [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 12(f)."

United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997). Hayes

never sought relief below for his default by showing cause under Rule

12(f) nor has he established plain error on appeal. See United States

v. Wilkerson, 84 F.3d 692, 694-95 (4th Cir. 1996) (discussing plain

error standard); United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir.

1997) (defining probable cause).

Next, Hayes asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict

him of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon because the

Government failed to establish knowing possession. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that

the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)

(providing standard); United States v. Hobbs, 136 F.3d 384, 390 (4th

Cir.) (outlining elements of § 922(g)(1)), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2358

(1998).

Finally, Hayes challenges his thirty-seven-month sentence on the

ground that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history

score. Specifically, he asserts that two convictions on which the dis-

 2
trict court relied were "related" because the state court imposed concurrent sentences on the same day after revoking Hayes' probation on

offenses that were committed at different times and separated by an

intervening arrest. We find no error in the district court's calculation

of Hayes' criminal history. See United States v. Breckenridge, 93 F.3d

132, 137 (4th Cir. 1996); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.2, comment. (n.3) (1998).

Accordingly, we affirm Hayes' 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