IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40668
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICK DORA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:97-CR-70-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
April 7, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patrick Dora appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine
base. Dora contends that the Government did not produce
sufficient evidence, the district court erred by admitting
evidence of a prior offense involving possession of cocaine, the
district court erred by admitting audio tape evidence, the
district court erred in determining that he was not entitled to
the safety-valve provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40668
-2-
court erred in determining the amount of cocaine base
attributable to him as relevant conduct.
The evidence was not insufficient. See United States v.
Gonzalez, 491 F.2d 1202, 1207 (5th Cir. 1974)(criminal conviction
may stand when based solely on uncorroborated testimony of
informant); see United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5th
Cir. 1991)(uncorroborated-testimony rule applies even if the
witness testified pursuant to a plea agreement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting
evidence of Dora’s prior drug possession. See United States v.
Cheramie, 51 F.3d 538, 541-42 (5th Cir. 1995)(evidence of prior
drug offense was relevant to show defendant’s knowledge and
intent and was not more prejudicial than probative). The
district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the tape
recordings into evidence. See United States v. Singh, 922 F.2d
1169, 1174 (5th Cir. 1991).
The district court’s decision to deny Dora the “safety-
valve” reduction was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Torres, 114 F.3d 520, 527 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
316 (1997).
There “is no separate statute of limitations beyond which
relevant conduct becomes irrelevant.” United States v. Moore,
927 F.2d 825, 828 (5th cir. 1991). Dora has not presented any
evidence to show that the district court’s determination of his
relevant conduct was clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991)(appellant bears burden
No. 98-40668
-3-
of showing that information in the PSR is "materially untrue,
inaccurate or unreliable").
AFFIRMED.