IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40644
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL TERRELL THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(1:00-CR-32-3)
November 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Terrell Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment
following his guilty-plea conviction for one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Thomas first argues that
the district court erred in using an incident that occurred in
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
December 1999 to calculate the amount of cocaine for which he
should be held responsible.
The district court’s determination of the quantity of drugs
attributable to a defendant for purposes of calculating his
sentence is a factual finding that this court reviews for clear
error.1 Because Thomas adduced no evidence in the district court
to rebut the facts recited in the presentence report (PSR), the
district court was free to adopt these facts and rely upon them in
sentencing Thomas.2
The PSR details Thomas’ involvement with the December 1999
incident and shows that Thomas was substantially involved with this
incident. The facts as recited in the PSR also show that the
December 1999 incident was part of the offense of conviction, not
an extraneous offense. Thomas has not shown that the district
court erred in using the December 1999 incident to calculate the
amount of cocaine for which he should be held responsible.
Thomas also argues that the district court erred in
determining that he was a leader or organizer of the criminal
conspiracy for which he was convicted. Thomas has not shown that
the district court clearly erred in concluding, based on the facts
set forth in the PSR, that the conspiracy involved five or more
people and that Thomas was a leader or organizer of the
1
United States v. Vine, 62 F.3d 107, 109 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
conspiracy.3 Because Thomas has shown no error in the district
court’s judgment, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
3
United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 383 (5th Cir. 1999).
3
United States v. Thomas
Combined Opinion