IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-11112
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT WILLIAM JOHNS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-58-1
_________________________________________________________________
July 17, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert William Johns appeals his sentence from his guilty plea
conviction for possession with the intent to distribute
amphetamine.
Johns argues that the district court erred in its drug
quantity determination because the government did not prove that
certain drugs identified as methamphetamine were in fact
methamphetamine. Johns limited his objection at sentencing to the
reliability of the information provided by the confidential
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
informants (“CIs”). Thus, review is limited to plain error.
Because Johns admitted to conspiring to possess with the intent to
distribute methamphetamine as well as amphetamine and because the
party objecting to information in the presentence report (“PSR”)
has the burden to demonstrate the unreliability or inaccuracy of
that information, we detect no plain error. See United States v.
Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Johns argues that the district court erred in its drug
quantity determination because the information supplied by the CIs
as described in the PSR lacked corroboration to be reliable
information for use at sentencing. The investigation by law
enforcement officers, as described in the PSR, corroborated details
of Johns’s trafficking activities. Johns failed to present any
evidence to rebut, or to demonstrate inaccuracy in, the PSR. The
district court did not err in relying on the PSR and, thus, the
determination of the amount of drugs for which Johns was held
accountable is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kelley,
140 F.3d 596, 609-10 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Rogers, 1
F.3d 341, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1993).
A F F I R M E D.
2