IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30115
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE J. LEE, also known as
Jamal Lewis,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-196-2
--------------------
October 7, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George J. Lee appeals his guilty-plea conviction of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and
using and carrying a firearm in connection with a drug-
trafficking offense. Lee argues that at the guilty-plea colloquy
the district court told him that he was pleading guilty to a
conspiracy involving 50 grams of crack cocaine, but, in fact, he
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30115
-2-
was pleading guilty to a conspiracy involving 50 or more grams of
crack cocaine.
Because Lee did not re-urge his motion to withdraw his plea
once the district court denied it without prejudice to re-urge it
after the completion of his psychiatric evaluation, he forfeited
his right to seek withdrawal, resulting in plain error review on
appeal. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e); United States v. Palomo, 998
F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
Contrary to Lee’s assertion, the district court informed Lee
that he was charged with conspiring to possess with intent to
distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine. Lee does not
explain how the district court’s later mistaken statement that he
was charged with 50 grams negated the district court’s prior
accurate explanation of the charge. Moreover, whether he had
been charged with 50 grams, or 50 or more grams, of cocaine base,
the mandatory minimum or maximum terms of imprisonment would not
have changed. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). Lee has not
demonstrated any plain error, i.e., clear or obvious error that
affects his substantial rights, regarding his guilty plea. See
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.
1994)(en banc).
Lee also argues that the 624 grams of cocaine base seized
from his co-defendant’s relative’s house should not have been
attributed to Lee as relevant conduct. We review for clear error
the district court’s determination of the quantity of drugs for
No. 02-30115
-3-
sentencing purposes. See United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520,
527 (5th Cir. 1997).
Lee is responsible for all quantities of cocaine with which
he was directly involved and all reasonably foreseeable drug
amounts attributable to his co-defendants. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)
(1)(B). According to the presentence report (PSR), Lee told
officers that his co-defendant, Elton Lee, had secreted a large
quantity of crack cocaine at another co-defendant’s relative’s
house for “safe keeping.” The district court adopted the PSR and
explicitly found that the relevant conduct as stated in the PSR
was accurate. Lee failed to present relevant evidence to rebut
the PSR’s drug-quantity calculations, and the district court was
free to adopt the findings of the PSR without further inquiry.
See United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 1999).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.