UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn McALLISTER, Defendant-Appellant, 42 F. App'x 646

OPINION PER CURIAM: Shawn McAllister was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). McAllister was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 240 months in compliance with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He appeals his sentence. We affirm.

The district court found McAllister was responsible for at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base as a result of his participation in a drug ring that manufactured and distributed cocaine base from between twenty and thirty kilograms of cocaine in 1999. Our review of the record confirms the district court did not clearly err in attributing to McAllister at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base for the period of the conspiracy from September 1999 to January 2000. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); United States v.

Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-202 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001); United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58, 62 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Paz, 927 F.2d 176, 180 (4th Cir.1991); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3 (2000). McAllister avers that he was a minor participant entitled to an adjustment pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2, comment. (n.l). Testimony at trial established that McAl-lister was a equal partner in the drug ring. See USSG § 3B1.2, comment, (n.3).

We accordingly hold that the district court did not err in denying McAllister an adjustment as a minor participant. See United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir.1999). This conclusion likewise disposes of McAllister’s claim that he should have received a downward departure under application note 14 of

section 2D1.1. See USSG § 2D1.1, comment, (n.14) (authorizing downward departure if, inter alia, “the defendant qualifies for a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2”). Accordingly, we affirm McAllister’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED.