IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11341
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ALBERTO CALIXTO-ESPINOSA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-57-2
- - - - - - - - - -
July 21, 1997
Before JOLLY, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Alberto Calixto-Espinosa (Calixto) appeals his sentence
from his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to
distribute methamphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Calixto argues that the district court erred in its
determination of the amount of methamphetamine for which Calixto
is accountable. For essentially the same reasons that the
district court explained at sentencing concerning reasonable
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
No. 96-11341
- 2 -
foreseeability, we conclude that the court’s finding of fact was
not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Hernandez-Coronado,
39 F.3d 573, 574-75 (5th Cir. 1994).
Calixto argues that the district court erred by enhancing by
two levels his offense level based on his leadership role over
his codefendant. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). We defer to the
district court’s credibility determinations made at sentencing.
See United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 799 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 620 (1996). In light of the testimony of
Calixto’s codefendant, we conclude that the district court’s
finding as to Calixto’s role in the offense is not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 932-33
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 54 (1995).
AFFIRMED.