UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4930

DEMARIOUS D. AUSTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-98-156)

Submitted: July 30, 1999

Decided: September 17, 1999

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,

and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

C. David Whaley, Anthony G. Spencer, MORCHOWER, LUXTON

& WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,

United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States

Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Demarious D. Austin appeals his convictions and sentence following a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994) and possession of a firearm as a

drug user in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(3) (West Supp. 1999).

Austin contents that: (1) the district court erred in increasing his sentence offense level for possession of firearms in connection with

another felony offense; and (2) the court erred in failing to reduce his

offense level for lawful possession of firearms solely for sporting purposes. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find that the evidence was sufficient to show that the firearms

in question were possessed in connection with the offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, thus warranting the adjustment on that basis. See U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2K2.1(b)(5) (1997); United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 654

(4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d 685, 686-87 (8th

Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1398 (1998) (No. 97-8157);

United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003-04 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in applying the

adjustment. See Nale, 101 F.3d at 1003.

Moreover, the district court denied Austin a reduction under USSG

§ 2K2.1(b)(2) based upon its finding that Austin did not possess the

firearms in question solely for hunting purposes. We agree with the

court's conclusion that Austin was not entitled to an adjustment for

use of a firearm solely for sporting purposes or collection. However,

our conclusion is based upon the more fundamental reason that USSG

§ 2K2.1(b)(2) does not apply to defendants, like Austin, who are

"subject to" USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4) or § 2K2.1(a)(5). See USSG

§ 2K2.1(b)(2) (precluding application of reduction for "defendants

subject to subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5)").

 2
Accordingly, we affirm Austin's convictions 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