UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4513

WILLIAM HENRY REID, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-97-748)

Submitted: February 16, 1999

Decided: April 7, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Benjamin Thomas Stepp, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S

OFFICE, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson

Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Henry Reid, Jr., appeals from his conviction and sentence

imposed after a jury trial of being a convicted felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). Reid's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising several issues but stating that

in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Reid was

informed of his right to file a supplemental informal brief and has

done so. We affirm.

The Government's evidence at trial established that when Spartanburg County Deputy Sheriff Kevin Bobo went to Reid's residence to

arrest him on several outstanding traffic offense warrants, Bobo

observed in plain view what he had reason to believe were items

stolen from the home of an elderly woman whose house Reid had previously rented. Bobo obtained a search warrant and returned later that

same day with other officers to search for the stolen goods. In the process of conducting the search, officers found two firearms in the

drawer of a dresser in Reid's bedroom.

At the close of the Government's case, Reid's counsel moved for

a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, which the district

court denied. Because the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under § 922(g)(1), the district court did not err in denying Reid's

Rule 29 motion. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 29;

United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1992); United

States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1147 (4th Cir. 1992).

The presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended that Reid

receive a four-level upward adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (1997), for possession of a firearm in

connection with the felony offense of grand larceny. The district court

overruled Reid's objection, finding the adjustment warranted based

on the grand larceny as well as evidence that Reid possessed marijuana with intent to distribute. The evidence was sufficient to show

that the firearms were possessed in connection with the offense of

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, thus warranting the

 2
adjustment on that basis. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5); Smith v. United

States, 508 U.S. 223, 238 (1993); United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d

685, 686-87 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct.

1398 (1998); 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.

The PSR also recommended a two-point upward adjustment in

Reid's offense level for obstruction of justice because Reid perjured

himself at trial. The district court did not clearly err in applying this

adjustment. See USSG § 3C1.1. Likewise, the district court did not err

in adding two points to Reid's criminal history category under USSG

§ 4A1.1(e).

The Government moved for an upward departure under USSG

§ 4A1.3(e), relying on Reid's numerous prior convictions and several

serious pending charges. The court departed upwards from a criminal

history category of IV to a category of V. The court did not abuse its

discretion in determining Reid's guideline range based on a criminal

history category of V. See USSG § 4A1.3(e), p.s.; United States v.

Rybicki, 96 F.3d 754, 756-57 (4th Cir. 1996). Finally, because the

record does not conclusively show that Reid received ineffective

assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue. See United

States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 651 (4th Cir. 1995).

The remaining claims not raised by counsel but raised by Reid in

his informal brief lack merit. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137

(1995), concerns the showing necessary to sustain a conviction under

the "use" prong of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998),

and does not affect the result of this appeal. Likewise, the record

shows that police officers did not exceed the scope of the warrant in

searching Reid's home.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no meritorious issues for appeal. Because the record discloses no

reversible error, we affirm Reid's conviction and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such

a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for

 3
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state

that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4