Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik Rene FLORES-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-01
Citations: 39 F. App'x 865
Docket Number: No. 02-4037
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik Rene FLORES-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 39
Pages: 865–865

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik Rene FLORES-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4037.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2002.
Decided July 1, 2002.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Erik Rene Flores-Ramirez pled guilty to being an illegal alien in the United States in the possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). He appeals from his 57 month sentence. We affirm.
The probation officer recommended that Flores-Ramirez's sentence be enhanced because the possession of the firearm was in connection with a drug trafficking offense. At sentencing, Flores-Ramirez objected to this recommendation and presented evidence to the contrary. The sentencing judge found Defendant's evidence to be incredible. The district court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses generally is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989). We find no clear error in the district court's factual determination that Flores-Ramirez's possession of the firearm was in connection with a drug trafficking offense. See United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1018 (4th Cir.1992) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm Flores-Ramirez's 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.