IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10406
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDRES PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:94-CR-101-A(1)
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andres Perez objects to the district court's three-level
increase in his offense level for being a manager or supervisor
in the offense, stating that without the unreliable evidence of
his co-defendant Magdalina Garcia, there was no evidence to
support the district court's finding regarding his role in the
offense.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10406
-2-
This court disturbs a district court's determination
regarding a defendant's role in a criminal activity only if it is
clearly erroneous. United States v. Barreto, 871 F.2d 511, 512
(5th Cir. 1989).
The testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed that Perez
had discussed the different brands of cocaine and the possibility
of making large cocaine purchases. The presentence report (PSR)
also reported that co-defendant Rene Morelos-Rocha told agents
that Perez paid him for storing cocaine and that Agent DeLaFlor
believed that Perez directed Morelos-Rocha and another defendant.
Perez does not demonstrate that this evidence was materially
untrue. United States v. Santiago, 993 F.2d 504, 506-07 (5th
Cir. 1993). Even considering any unreliability of Garcia's
statements regarding Perez's involvement, the district court had
sufficient evidence to find that Perez was a manager or
supervisor. The district court did not clearly err in its
finding.
AFFIRMED.