UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 96-4320

MAURICE ALEXANDER WILLIAMSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.
(CR-95-114)

Submitted: January 23, 1997

Decided: February 10, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Troy J. Stafford, DEVORE & ACTON, P.A., Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, David
C. Keesler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Alexander Williamson appeals the 41-month sentence he
received for mailing threatening communications, 18 U.S.C. § 876
(1994), contending that he was incorrectly sentenced as a career
offender. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,
§ 4B1.1 (Nov. 1995). We affirm.

A defendant is a career offender if he is at least eighteen years old
at the time of the instant offense, the instant offense is a crime of vio-
lence or a drug offense, and the defendant has at least two prior felony
convictions for either crimes of violence or drug offenses. Williamson
had four prior felony convictions for crimes of violence, but argued
that they were related cases and should be counted as one because
they were consolidated for sentencing. See USSG § 4A1.2, comment.
(n.3). However, the offenses were separated by intervening arrests.
Consequently, the district court correctly determined that the prior
offenses were not related. Id.; see, e.g., United States v. Aguillera, 

, 330 (8th Cir.), cert denied, #6D 6D6D# U.S. ___, 

(U.S. Oct. 2, 1995) (No. 94-9476). Williamson's reliance on our hold-
ing in United States v. Allen, 

, 297-99 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___ (U.S. June 26, 1995) (No. 94-9414), is mis-
placed. In Allen, the parties agreed that there were no intervening
arrests.

The sentence is therefore affirmed. 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

                    2