UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4098

MARK ALAN BOLLING,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.

(CR-96-78)

Submitted: January 27, 1998

Decided: February 18, 1998

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, George H. Lancaster, Jr.,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Mark Alan Bolling pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West Supp. 1997), for which he was

sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. Bolling appeals, claiming

that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement for

committing an offense which involved a destructive device, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(3) (1995). We affirm.

Federal agents executed a search warrant at Bolling's West Virginia residence in May 1996 and found, in addition to numerous firearms, three steel pipes, each measuring one and one-half inches in

diameter by four inches in length, threaded at both ends with steel

caps screwed on, and the beginnings of a hole drilled in one of the

three. Agents also recovered three long coils of green cannon fuse and

a plastic jar filled with pyrodex, a low explosive powder.

At Bolling's sentencing hearing, Agent Roy Myers, an expert in

explosives from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, testified that the capped pipes, cannon fuse, and pyrodex were necessary

components in the manufacture of pipe bombs. Myers stated that the

dimensions of the pipes and the capped ends, along with the fact that

one of the pipes had been partially drilled to allow a fuse to be introduced, led him to conclude that the materials were intended to be used

as pipe bombs. Myers stated that he could imagine no legitimate use

for four-inch capped pipes. In addition, the district court considered

the grand jury testimony of a witness who testified that Bolling had

told her that the pipes and other materials were for pipe bombs and

that "you never know when you need one." Based on this evidence,

the district court imposed a two-level enhancement to Bolling's sentence pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(3), finding that the components

found in Bolling's residence met the definition of a"destructive

device." Bolling appeals.

 2
Application Note 4 to § 2K2.1 defines a "destructive device" to

include "any explosive, [or] incendiary . .. (i) bomb . . . or (vi) any

type of weapon which will, or which may be readily converted to,

expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant . . .

or any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in

converting any device into any destructive device listed above." The

Application Note then refers to 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) (1994) for a more

detailed definition of "destructive device." Bolling maintains that the

combination of parts at issue were neither "designed" nor subjectively

intended by him for use in a destructive device.

We apply the due deference standard in reviewing the district

court's application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts. See

United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). In

United States v. Morningstar, 456 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1972), this court

held that four sticks of black powder pellet explosive fastened

together with electrical tape, together with unattached blasting caps,

could constitute a "destructive device" within the meaning of

§ 5845(f). Based on the evidence before the district court, we cannot

find that it erred in concluding that the combination of parts found in

Bolling's possession were both designed and intended for use as a

"destructive device" within the meaning of USSG § 2K2.1. Accordingly, we affirm Bolling'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