IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50081
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMMY DEAN FOSTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(W-01-CR-115-1)
--------------------
June 14, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Sammy Dean Foster appeals the sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine. Foster argues that the
district court relied on inaccurate, confusing, and unreliable
evidence at sentencing to determine the drug quantities for which
he should be held accountable. We apply the clearly erroneous
standard when reviewing a district court’s factual findings of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
quantity of drugs implicated by the crime. United States v. Davis,
76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996).
By finding the government’s evidence credible and reliable,
the district court implicitly adopted the officer’s testimony and
the government’s recommendation that Foster be held responsible for
at least 1.5 but not more than 5 kilograms of methamphetamine under
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(3). See United States
v. Golden, 17 F.3d 735, 737 (5th Cir. 1994). At sentencing, Foster
did not rebut the officer’s testimony that supported this finding.
See United States v. Clark, 139 F.3d 485, 490 (5th Cir. 1998).
Even though the officer’s testimony was somewhat imprecise, the
court’s reliance on it is not precluded because, for sentencing
purposes, the court could consider estimates of drug quantities.
See United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998).
Foster has shown neither clear error nor legal error. His
sentence is , therefore,
AFFIRMED.
2