IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60671
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
J. B. REED,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:01-CR-140-1-D
--------------------
February 13, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
J.B. Reed appeals his guilty-plea conviction of aiding and
abetting others in the distribution of cocaine base in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(C). He argues that the district
court erred under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 in holding him accountable for
46.6 grams of cocaine base distributed by himself and his
co-defendants. He argues there was no evidence to support a
finding that he was part of a conspiracy and, thus, that he should
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
be held accountable for the conduct of his co-defendants.
Alternatively, he argues that, even if there was an adequate
evidentiary basis for these facts in the presentence report (PSR),
he rebutted this evidence with his sworn testimony at the
sentencing hearing and the Government did not offer anything to
controvert his rebuttal evidence.
“[A] defendant’s base offense level for the offense of
conviction must be determined on the basis of all ‘relevant
conduct’ as defined in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.” United States v. Vital,
68 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1995). Relevant conduct includes “all
reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance
of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). We review for clear error the district
court’s determination of what constitutes relevant conduct. United
States v. Wall, 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999).
The PSR described a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base
which included Reed, his brother, and two other individuals. The
PSR indicated that there was an investigation of the conspiracy and
Reed’s involvement from May 8, 2001, until June 26, 2001. The PSR
also detailed the amount of drugs that were distributed by the
members of the conspiracy during that time.
A defendant who objects to the sentencing court’s
consideration of information in the PSR bears the burden of proving
that the information is “materially untrue, inaccurate or
unreliable.” United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.
2
1991). The only evidence offered by Reed to demonstrate that the
statements in the PSR were unreliable, untrue, or inaccurate was
his self-serving testimony that he was not involved in the stated
conspiracy. The district court obviously did not find Reed’s
testimony credible, and we will not disturb this credibility
determination by the district court. See United States v. Edwards,
65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e).
Accordingly, based on the information contained in the PSR,
the district court did not clearly err in holding Reed accountable
for 46.6 grams of cocaine base. Reed’s sentence is therefore
AFFIRMED.
G:\OPIN-SC\02-60671.opn.wpd 3