UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4736

KAREEN WATSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CR-97-445)

Submitted: June 22, 1999

Decided: August 9, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas Abbenante, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, James L. Trump, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kareen Watson appeals from a 235-month sentence imposed following his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent

to distribute and to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, marijuana, and

PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1999). We find

no reversible error and affirm Watson's conviction and sentence.

Watson first contends that the district court erred in denying his

motion for a judgment of acquittal. We find that viewing the evidence

in a light most favorable to the Government, Watson's conviction was

supported by sufficient evidence. See United States v. Romer, 148

F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1032 (1999).

We also reject Watson's evidentiary arguments. The evidence of

Watson's participation in a fraudulent check scheme was intrinsic to

his drug distribution activities and not subject to the limitations of

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). See United States v. Chin , 83 F.3d 83, 87-88

(4th Cir. 1996). We also find that the evidence was not overly prejudicial, see Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by admitting the evidence of the fraudulent check scheme.

Even assuming the prejudice from the admission of this evidence outweighed its probative value, any error was harmless given the

strength of the other evidence against Watson. See United States v.

Ince, 21 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 1994). We further find that the district court did not clearly err when it increased Watson's base offense

level by two levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997). Because the evidence at trial showed that Watson accepted a firearm as consideration for drugs, his possession of

the firearm was connected to the offense. See United States v. Rogers,

150 F.3d 851, 858 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 888 (1999).

Finally, the district court did not clearly err when it refused to reduce

Watson's sentence on his claim that he accepted responsibility. While

Watson correctly notes that a defendant who is convicted after a trial

is not automatically excluded from receiving a reduction under USSG

§ 3E1.1, Watson challenged his factual innocence at trial and thus did

not fit within the exception to the general rule precluding such a

 2
reduction. See United States v. Dickerson, 114 F.3d 464, 470 (4th Cir.

1997).

Accordingly, we affirm Watson's 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