United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 16, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11067
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DENISE MICHELLE CONTRERAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:03-CR-47-5
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Denise Michelle Contreras appeals the 188-month sentence
imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. 21
U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Contreras argues the district court erred by enhancing her
offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) based on a finding
that she was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-11067
-2-
involving five or more participants. Reliable information
contained in the PSR and introduced at sentencing showed that
Contreras supplied cellular telephones to other members of the
operation, she equipped others with materials necessary to the
furtherance of the drug operation, she directed others to
complete financial transactions for the drug operation, she set
prices and controlled the delivery of the methamphetamine, and
she paid her brother a flat fee for drug deliveries that he made
while she herself was paid in pounds of methamphetamine.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that
Contreras had a supervisory or managerial role in the drug
operation. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4); United States
v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Manthei, 913 F.2d 1130, 1135 (5th Cir. 1990). Nor did the
district court err in applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard to a disputed sentencing issue. See United States v.
Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1240 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.