The HONORABLE RUSSELL G. CLARK, United States District Judg e for the 1 Western District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3510

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Jack L. Sargent, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 25, 1998 Filed: August 25, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jack L. Sarg ent, Jr., pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and was convicted aft er a bench trial of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug traffickin g cri me, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

. The district court sentenced him to a total 1 of 211 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. In this appeal Sargent-2-

challeng es the sufficiency of the evidence for his firearm conviction, and als o challenges his sentence. We affirm.
We first reject Sargent & s challenge to his conviction. See United States v
. Ha bhab , 132 F.3d 410, 412 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). The government & s evi dence showed Sargent carried the firearms listed in the indictment while engage d in the charged conspiracy, and did so to protect his drugs and d rug money, and to elude or kill authorities. The evidence also showed that Sargent was carrying one of th e firearms while seated in a car on his way to one of the manufacturing sites to finis h “cooking” a b atch of methamphetamine; that one of the firearms was found under the passen ger

seat in which he had been seated, when he arrived at the site and wa s arrested; and that authorities also found anot her firearm under the driver & s seat, as well as ingredients for manufacturing methamphetamine in the trunk. See Muscarello v
. United States , 118 S. Ct. 1911, 1913-14 (1998) (carry element of § 924(c) “applies to a person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle . . . which th e person accompanies”); United States v. Barnes , 140 F.3d 73 7, 738 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Moreover, we reject any suggestion by Sargent that the district court s hould have found his conspirators & trial testimony unreliable because it resulted from a ple a agr eement. See United States v. Wicker , 80 F.3d 263, 268 (8th Cir. 1996). To th e extent Sargent argues the district court should have excluded the testimony becaus e their plea agreements violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (pro hibiting gift, offer, or promise of anything of value to witness, for or becaus e of witness & s testimony), he did not raise the issue below and we find no plain error. See United States v. Montanye , 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc). As to his sentence, Sargent argues that the district court erred in (1) failing t o make specific finding s on his objections to the presentence report, (2) denying him an acceptance-of-re sponsibility reduction, (3) enhancing his sentence for his aggravating-3-

role in the of

fense, and (4) calculating his criminal history score. We reject each o f these arguments. After careful review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude the district court adequately a ddressed the objections before it. See United States v. Alaniz , No. 97

- 3189, 1 998 WL 331282, at *5 (8th Cir. June 24, 1998); United States v. Dortch , 923 F.2d 629, 633 (8t

h Cir. 1991). Further the district court did not clearly err in denying Sargent a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S. Sentencing Guideline s Ma nual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4) (1997), or in assessing an enhancement under U.S
. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (1997) for his role in the offense, see United Sta tes v. Jordan , No. 98-1506, 1998 WL 417134, at *5-6 (8th Cir. July 27, 1998 ) (standard of review; facto rs); United States v. Crow , No. 97-3613, 1998 WL 391503, at *2 (8th Cir. July 15, 1998) (distr ict court entitled to rely upon evidence presented at tr ial when making sentencing determination). Sargent & s challenge to his crimina l history sc ore also lacks merit because it is uncontested that, at the time he committed the instant offenses, Sargent was under a sentence of prob ation based on his guilty plea to an assault charge. Se e U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(c) (1997) (add on e criminal history point for prior sentences not counted in subsections (a) and (b)); U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d) comment. (n.4) (1997) (add tw o crimina lhistory points if defendant committed instant offense while under probatio n countable under § 4A1.2). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.