UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-5277

SHAWN WILLIAM ARNOLD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-84)

Submitted: July 25, 1996

Decided: August 14, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney,
Philip J. Combs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Shawn William Arnold pled guilty to conspiracy to possess crack
cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp.
1996), and was sentenced to a term of 70 months imprisonment. His
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

 (1967), raising three issues but asserting that, in her view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Arnold was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed one.

The issues raised by counsel are without merit. Arnold's prosecu-
tion was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had
previously forfeited in state court the cash he was carrying when he
was arrested.* Even if the forfeiture was punitive, federal and state
governments may prosecute a defendant for the same conduct without
violating the dual sovereignty doctrine, United States v. Pena, 

, 156 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Heath v. Alabama, 

, 89
(1985)), unless one sovereign is merely acting as a tool of the other.
Pena, 67 F.3d at 156; see also Bartkus v. Illinois, 

, 123-
24 (1959). There was no showing here that federal officials were
manipulated by state officials in prosecuting Arnold.

Arnold admitted that when he was arrested he was selling crack in
partnership with co-defendant Florinda Johnson and had done so on
previous occasions. The district court did not clearly err in holding
him accountable for the 3.9 grams of crack seized from her as well
as the 19 grams found near him when a search warrant was executed
at the apartment they were using as a base of operations. United
States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 1B1.3(a)(1)
(Nov. 1994) (relevant conduct includes acts aided and abetted by
_________________________________________________________________
*The record does not reflect whether the West Virginia forfeiture pro-
ceeding was civil or criminal.

                    2
defendant and reasonably foreseeable acts of others in furtherance of
conspiracy). Moreover, Arnold withdrew his objection to the base
offense level calculation at sentencing.

Arnold committed the instant offense within two years of his
release from a prior sentence of imprisonment. Two points were cor-
rectly added to his criminal history score under USSG § 4A1.1(e).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires
that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a peti-
tion would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3