Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Amon THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-12
Citations: 57 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 02-4778
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Amon THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Amon THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4778.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
Decided March 12, 2003.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Andre Amon Thompson pled guilty to possession of counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2000). He was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. His sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred, during sentencing, in imposing a four-level adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B5.1(b)(4) (2001), for possession of a firearm in connection with the felony offense. We affirm.
To the extent that Thompson's assertion of error involves a challenge to the district court's interpretation of USSG § 2B5.1, we apply a de novo standard of review. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989). To the extent that Thompson's assertion of error challenges the district court's factual findings, we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id.
After reviewing the parties' briefs and the materials submitted on appeal, we find that, under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under USSG § 2B5.1(b)(4). Accordingly, we affirm Thompson's sen tence. 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.