UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4740

BARRY ANTWOINE ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-99-198)

Submitted: May 10, 2000

Decided: May 23, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Walter Thaniel Johnson, Jr., Juanita Boger Allen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Barry Antwoine Robinson appeals the seventy-eight-month sentence he received after he pled guilty to possession of one ounce of

cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.§ 844(a) (West

1999). He contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that

he possessed a firearm during the offense and making a two-level

enhancement. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§§ 2D2.1(b)(1), 2D1.1(b)(1) (1998). We affirm.

Robinson was arrested in his co-defendant's apartment while in the

act of flushing crack down the toilet. The presentence report recommended an enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1)* based on information

that Robinson's papers and clothes were found in one of the bedrooms with two firearms (a 9 mm pistol and a .380 caliber pistol) and

400.6 grams of crack. Robinson's co-defendant told investigators that

one of the firearms belonged to Robinson and that Robinson lived at

the apartment. Additional firearms were found elsewhere in the apartment. At his sentencing hearing, Robinson contested the enhancement, but did not present any evidence to contradict the information

in the presentence report. Therefore, the district court was free to

adopt the findings in the presentence report without further inquiry.

See United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). The

proximity of guns to illegal drugs is enough to support the enhancement. See United States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852 (4th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, the court did not clearly err in making the enhancement.

While Robinson suggests that the enhancement resulted from prosecutorial misconduct, he did not make that claim at sentencing and

no evidence supports it.

_________________________________________________________________

*The guideline applicable to simple possession of a controlled substance is § 2D2.1; a cross reference to § 2D1.1 applies if, as in this case,

the defendant is convicted of possessing more than 5 grams of crack. See

USSG § 2D2.1(b)(1).

 2
We therefore affirm the 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