United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41110
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL BREWER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-34-2
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Paul Brewer appeals his jury conviction
and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and 846. Brewer contends that the district court abused
its discretion when it allowed the government to present evidence
of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts unrelated to the charged
offense.
The indictment specifically alleged that on or about February
19, 2003, Brewer, Tremaine D. Richardson, and Marcus L. Sims
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
conspired with each other, Marcus D. Campbell, Julian L. Block,
Jr., Bobby Ray Jones, Tony B. Nelson, and others to possess with
intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. At trial,
Kerese Cooper testified that he saw Brewer in possession of cocaine
or crack cocaine while “hang[ing] out” with Brewer and Richardson
at Brewer’s house six to seven weeks before November 15, 2002.
This evidence established the connection between Cooper,
Richardson, and Brewer and provided the jury with necessary
background information regarding their relationship as co-
conspirators. Therefore, the evidence was intrinsic to the charged
conspiracy and not subject to the requirements of FED. R. EVID.
404(b). See United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 440-41 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Brewer also contends that the district court clearly erred
when it sentenced him based on the court’s incorrect recollection
of the evidence. Further, Brewer contends that the district
court’s determination as to the quantity of drugs attributable to
him was based on evidence that lacked sufficient indicia of
reliability.
According to Campbell’s and Block’s trial testimony and
statements to law enforcement officers set forth in the presentence
report, Brewer delivered approximately 453.6 grams of cocaine base
to Magnolia, Arkansas, on February 19, 2003. This evidence has
sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy,
and Brewer has not demonstrated that the evidence is materially
2
untrue. See United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir.
1996). Therefore, the district court’s determination that Brewer
was responsible for 453.6 grams of cocaine base was plausible in
light of the record read as a whole, and Brewer has not shown clear
error. See United States v. Shipley, 963 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir.
1992).
Finally, Brewer contends that to determine the statutory
minimum sentence under § 841(b)(1), the district court must
determine the quantity of drugs personally attributable to the
defendant. As the district court did not clearly err in
determining that Brewer was personally responsible for 453.6 grams
of cocaine base, Brewer’s argument is unavailing.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3