UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 95-5466

EMZY MONROE WALLS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CR-91-40)

Submitted: February 29, 1996

Decided: April 5, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Daniel K. Read, Jr., JESSEE & READ, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Karen B.
Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Emzy Monroe Walls pled guilty in November 1991 to conspiracy
to possess methamphetamine and marijuana with intent to distribute.
21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995). His offense involved
880 grams of methamphetamine. Walls was sentenced in February
1992 to 188 months imprisonment and his sentence was reduced to
120 months in July 1992 on the government's motion for a departure
for substantial assistance. He did not appeal his sentence.

In April 1994, Walls filed a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (1988) motion
alleging error in that he had been sentenced on the assumption that
the methamphetamine involved in his offense was D-methampheta-
mine rather than L-methamphetamine. At the time, the applicable
guideline provided a lower sentence for an offense involving L-meth-
amphetamine; one gram of methamphetamine was the equivalent of
1 kilogram of marijuana, while 1 gram of L-methamphetamine was
the equivalent of 40 grams of marijuana. United States Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10) (Nov.
1991).* The government agreed to have Walls resentenced under the
guideline range for an L-methamphetamine offense. Walls was resen-
tenced to a term of 100 months. It is this sentence he appeals.

Before the resentencing, Walls filed objections to the original pre-
sentence report. In addition to a recalculation of his base offense
level, he requested a 3-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibil-
ity, USSG § 3E1.1, and argued that the special skill adjustment previ-
ously awarded for his ability to manufacture methamphetamine did
not apply. USSG § 3B1.3.
_________________________________________________________________

*A 1995 amendment to USSG § 2D1.1 eliminated the distinction.
USSG App. C, amendment 518.

                    2
At sentencing, the district court found that the mandatory minimum
sentence set out in § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) applied to all forms of meth-
amphetamine. Therefore, although Walls's base offense level of 26
and criminal history category III yielded a guideline range of 78-97
months, his guideline range was 120 months. USSG§ 5G1.1(b).
Walls principally contests this ruling. We find no error.

Unlike the pre-1995 version of USSG § 2D1.1,§ 841 makes no
distinction between types of methamphetamine. The mandatory mini-
mum sentence thus applies whether D-methamphetamine or L-meth-
amphetamine is involved. See United States v. Massey, 

,
638 (8th Cir. 1995). The district court was thus correct in finding that
Walls's guideline range was 120 months.

Because the guideline range could not have been less than 120
months, the adjustments for special skill and acceptance of responsi-
bility had no effect on the sentence. Therefore, we find that Walls's
challenges to these adjustments do not merit discussion or relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3