IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10335
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARL DAVID CROWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:00-CR-42-1
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carl David Crowell appeals his sentence following his guilty
plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more
than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Crowell contends that the district
court clearly erred in sentencing him based on the Presentence
Report’s (PSR) “actual” d-methamphetamine calculation. He argues
that, because he was unable to find an independent chemist with
the ability to test for drug purity, he could not rebut the PSR’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10335
-2-
drug purity findings and was therefore denied due process.
Crowell further asserts that the district court erred in
admitting a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) lab report
because 1) the report constituted unreliable hearsay evidence and
2) the admission of the report violated Crowell’s right of
confrontation/cross examination.
We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the
parties and hold that the district court did not clearly err in
admitting the DEA lab report and in basing Crowell’s sentence on
the PSR’s “actual” d-methamphetamine calculation. See United
States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 831 (5th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.
Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.