UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                 v.                            No. 01-4913
WILLIAM TAWARAH LAMB,
             Defendant-Appellant.
                                       
            Appeal from the United States District Court
     for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
                James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.
                             (CR-00-138)

                      Submitted: June 4, 2002

                      Decided: June 20, 2002

 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.



Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


                            COUNSEL

Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN, BERRY, POWERS & SLAUGHTER,
P.L.L.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whit-
ney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
2                       UNITED STATES v. LAMB
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).


                              OPINION

PER CURIAM:

   William Tawarah Lamb appeals his 120 month sentence imposed
following his jury conviction of one count of unlawful possession of
a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West
2000). At trial, the parties stipulated that Lamb was previously con-
victed of two state drug felonies. One of those felony offenses formed
the essential element of the prior felony for the § 922(g)(1) charge.
Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4A1.1(c)
respectively, the district court used these two prior state felony con-
victions to upwardly adjust both Lamb’s base offense level and his
criminal history category.

   We review a district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear
error and its related legal conclusions, including the application of the
sentencing guidelines, de novo. See United States v. Daughtrey, 

, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). Lamb claims the district court violated
the Double Deopardy and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution by
impermissibly imposing multiple punishments for a single offense.
We find these contentions to be without merit. We held in United
States v. Johnson, 

, 84 (4th Cir. 1994), that "where the leg-
islature has specifically authorized cumulative punishments for the
same conduct, there is not double jeopardy." Both USSG
§§ 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4A1.1(c) contemplate that prior felony convic-
tions will be used to determine a defendant’s base offense level and
his criminal history category. The district court properly followed the
guidelines’ directives, and we are "not at liberty to disturb an other-
wise proper application of the guidelines." United States v. Crawford,

, 1180 (4th Cir. 1994). Our reasoning is in line with
numerous other circuits. See, e.g., United States v. Alessandroni, 

, 423 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Wyckoff, 

(11th Cir. 1990). We reject Lamb’s due process contention on the
same grounds.
                       UNITED STATES v. LAMB                       3
  Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dis-
pense 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