IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11098
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OCTAVIO FRANCO-NAVARETTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(2:91-CR-15)
- - - - - - - - - -
April 2, 1997
Before Wisdom, Jolly, and Benavides, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Octavio Franco-Navarette pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute cocaine and to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine. He appeals the resultant sentence. The defendant
argues that the district court erred in its calculation of
cocaine attributable to the defendant and in failing to make
specific findings to support the court’s denial of the
defendant’s motion for a reduction in his sentence because of
minimal or minor participation in the offense.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-11098
- 2 -
Based on our review of the record and the briefs of the
parties, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err
in finding that Franco-Navarette negotiated to deliver seven
kilograms of cocaine.2 The district court’s finding referring to
the presentence report in this regard was sufficient.3 The
district court’s adoption of the Presentence report’s Addendum
response to Franco-Navarette’s objection constitutes a sufficient
statement of the factual basis for the finding that he was not a
minor participant.4 Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.
2
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th
Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198 (1994).
3
See United States v. Mora, 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 958 (1993) (Holding that “a
defendant is generally provided adequate notice of the district
court’s resolution of disputed facts when the court’s resolution
merely adopts the findings of the PSR”.).
4
See United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241-42 (5th
Cir. 1995).