UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4542

RONNIE DEON THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-36)

Submitted: March 23, 1999

Decided: April 22, 1999

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, L. Patrick

Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Deon Thompson was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas

of manufacturing, passing, and uttering counterfeit Federal Reserve

notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472 (1994). On appeal, he

alleges that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history

score and by enhancing his base offense level based on the quality of

the counterfeit notes. Finding no error, we affirm.

Police in Greensboro, North Carolina, arrested Thompson on state

drug charges. During the ensuing search of his home, police found

evidence suggesting that Thompson was printing counterfeit money.

Thompson admitted to Secret Service agents that he used an ink-jet

color copier to produce over $4900 worth of counterfeit notes.

Thompson further admitted to successfully passing a counterfeit $50

bill at a local video store. Investigators later discovered that twelve

additional counterfeit notes (with identical serial numbers to those

found in Thompson's home) had been passed. Thompson denied passing these other notes.

Thompson alleges that the district court erred by considering a

1987 conviction in calculating his criminal history score even though

the Government was unable to produce a certified copy of the

conviction.1 We disagree. Thompson bears the burden of showing that

the information in the presentence report is inaccurate; mere objections are insufficient, and we find that he has failed to meet this burden. See United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990).

Moreover, it is well settled that a sentencing court is not restricted to

relying on information which would be admissible at trial, provided

_________________________________________________________________

1 The probation officer testified that he discovered the conviction while

performing a routine search using a computerized database. He further

testified that the "hard copy" of the conviction had been destroyed.

 2
it "has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." See USSG § 6A1.3(a), p.s.2 We find that the district courtdid

not abuse its discretion in finding the computerized records reliable,

nor was its decision to apply the 1987 conviction in calculating

Thompson's criminal history score clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Marin-Cuevas, 147 F.3d 889, 894-95 (9th Cir. 1998).

We review the district court's factual finding that the counterfeit

notes were of sufficiently good quality to pass minimal scrutiny for

clear error and find none. See United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 75-

77 (4th Cir. 1996). The district court correctly applied the factors set

forth in Miller and properly enhanced Thompson's base offense level

pursuant to USSG § 2B5.1(b)(2).3 

Accordingly, we affirm Thompson'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

_________________________________________________________________

2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997).

3 Our independent review of the trial exhibits, performed at Thompson's request, also leads us to the conclusion that the counterfeit notes

were of passable quality.

 3