United States v. Templeton

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 97-41471
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLIE DEWAYNE TEMPLETON,

                                              Defendant-Appellant.

                       - - - - - - - - - -
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Eastern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 6:95-36-37
                       - - - - - - - - - -

                            August 19, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Charlie Dewayne Templeton appeals his sentence from his

guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to

distribute cocaine.

     Templeton challenges the two-level adjustment, pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), by arguing that he sufficiently rebutted the

information in the presentence report (PSR) about two individuals

selling cocaine for him; the only surrebuttal to Templeton’s

explanation was the probation officer’s recollection from his


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-41471
                               -2-

interview notes; the Government presented no evidence to rebut

Templeton’s explanation; and without any independent evidence

corroborating the information in the PSR, the district court’s

finding lacked a sufficient evidential basis.   The district

court’s credibility determination favored the probation officer’s

version of the statements made by Templeton during the interview.

See United States v. Sarasti, 869 F.2d 805, 807 (5th Cir. 1989).

Templeton’s statements to the probation officer supported the

two-level adjustment for Templeton’s role in the offense, and the

district court’s § 3B1.1 ruling was not clearly erroneous.     See

United States v. Giraldo, 111 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 118 S. Ct. 322 (1997).

     AFFIRMED.