United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 22, 2004
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
_________________________
No. 03 - 41242
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HOWARD DEWAYNE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
______________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
(1:02-CR-57-2)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1
In this appeal, we review Defendant - Appellant, Howard Williams’, sentence pursuant to
his guilty plea for possession of more than five grams but less than fifty grams of crack cocaine
with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Williams argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-level increase in his offense
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
level based upon his possession of a pistol that was found in the night stand of the motel room
Williams was seen exiting immediately prior to his arrest. Specifically, Williams challenges the
reliability of the statements of four drug users arrested in the motel room who told officers that
the gun belonged to Williams. According to Williams, the statements lacked sufficient indicia of
reliability as required by U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).
We review the decision for plain error because Williams failed to inform the district court
of the specific grounds of his objection. See United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 671 (5th Cir.
1997). Under the plain-error standard of review, Williams bears the burden of showing that (1)
there is an error, (2) the error is clear or obvious, and (3) the error affects his substantial rights.
See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993).
The Sentencing Guidelines state that if a dangerous weapon was possessed during a drug-
trafficking offense, the defendant’s offense level is increased by two levels. U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(1). The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly
improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. Id., comment. (n.3); see United
States v. Salado, 339 F.3d 285, 293-94 (5th Cir. 2003).
The district court relied on information in the PSR, including statements made by drug
users, to make it’s decision. Information in a PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability to
be considered evidence in making factual determinations under the Sentencing Guidelines. United
States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1996). It is Williams’ burden to show that the
evidence relied upon is materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable. See United States v. Floyd,
343 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 2003).
Though some courts have questioned the reliability of statements made by drug users
-2-
regarding drug-quantity calculations, we find that the four identical statements made in this case
as to the simple question of whether the gun belonged to Williams are not materially untrue,
inaccurate, or unreliable. See Id. Thus, Williams has failed to show plain error. The district
court’s decision is affirmed.
-3-