United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 24, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10883
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LLOYD JORDAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-100-A-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lloyd Jordan appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district
court used the incorrect burden of proof in determining the drug
quantity involved in the offense for sentencing purposes. The
difference in possible sentences did “not constitute such a
dramatic effect that it would justify considering, much less
imposing, the higher burden of proof.” See United States v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10883
-2-
Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1240 (5th Cir. 1994)(difference in
possible sentences of six to 20 years did not justify higher
burden of proof).
Jordan argues that the district court clearly erred in
determining the quantity of marijuana involved in his offense.
Because the facts presented in the Presentence Report (PSR) were
supported by an adequate evidentiary basis and because Jordan did
not offer any evidence to rebut the facts set forth in the PSR,
the district court did not clearly err in determining that Jordan
was responsible for a 400-pound marijuana shipment for sentencing
purposes. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Jordan argues that the district court erred in denying him a
three-point reduction in his offense level for acceptance of
responsibility. The district court determined that Jordan
frivolously contested his involvement in the 400-pound marijuana
shipment, that Jordan failed to discuss some of his financial
transactions with the probation officer, and that Jordan’s
transfer of a white Tahoe to his mother and stepfather was not a
legitimate transaction. Because the district court’s
determination was not without foundation, the district court did
not err in denying Jordan a three-point reduction for acceptance
of responsibility. See United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515,
525 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.