United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 08-1447
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Eastern District of Missouri.
Frank Waters, Jr.,                      *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                  *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: December 8, 2008
                                Filed: January 13, 2009
                                 ___________

Before MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and DOTY,1 District Judge.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Frank Waters, Jr., pled guilty to one count of Possession of a Stolen Firearm,
18 U.S.C. § 922(j). The district court2 sentenced him to 112 months and eight days
imprisonment. Waters appeals, claiming sentencing error. Jurisdiction being proper
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, this court affirms.


      1
         The Honorable David S. Doty, United States Senior District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
      2
       The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.
       Waters burglarized a home, stealing numerous firearms. The presentence
investigation report determined that his total offense level was 29 based upon: 1) a
base offense level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2); 2) a two-level increase for the
number of firearms; 3) a two-level increase for possessing stolen firearms; 4) a four-
level increase for firearm possession in connection with another felony – burglary; and
5) a three-level deduction for acceptance of responsibility. Waters’s guideline range
was 140 to 175 months, but under U.S.SG. § 5G1.1(c)(1), his range became 120
months due to the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (maximum sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) is 10 years). Waters was sentenced to 112 months and eight
days imprisonment, after credit for nearly eight months of time served on a state
conviction for the same conduct.

       Waters argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the court’s two-level
increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) for possessing stolen firearms is already
incorporated in the base offense level for violating § 922(j). This court reviews de
novo the district court’s construction and application of the Sentencing Guidelines,
and reviews for clear error any factual findings regarding enhancements. United
States v. Wintermute, 

, 1004 (8th Cir. 2006). This court reviews
sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Garcia, 

, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008), citing Gall v. United States, 

, 597 (2007).
A sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable on appeal. 

v. United States, 

, 2462 (2007).

       Waters does not dispute that U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) was properly applied. An
enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4) does not impermissibly “double count” by applying
a two-level increase to a defendant’s sentence because the firearms were stolen. See
United States v. Hawkins, 

, 912 (8th Cir. 1999) (“By necessary
implication . . . two levels must be added if any firearm was stolen or had an altered
serial number, unless the base level is determined under subsection (a)(7).”) (internal
quotation omitted); see also United States v. Kenney, 

, 938 (8th Cir. 2002)
(holding that the district court “did not impermissibly double count” in applying a
                                           -2-
two-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4) where defendant possessed stolen
firearms).

       Waters also claims that the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1(b)(6) for possessing firearms in connection with a burglary over-represents the
seriousness of the offense. This court has upheld the enhancement where firearms
were stolen during a burglary. See 

sentence applying a four-level
enhancement for the burglary of firearms). The district court did not abuse its
discretion when sentencing Waters.

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________




                                         -3-