IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50307
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLIE LEE FRANKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. CR-A-93-104
- - - - - - - - - -
June 26, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlie Lee Franks appeals the sentence imposed at
resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for possession
of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, and money laundering. Franks contends that
the district court clearly erred in finding that he violated the
conditions of his release and denying him a three-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 of the U.S.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-50307
- 2 -
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court’s determination that
Franks violated the conditions of his release was supported by
reliable information in the Presentence Report. United States v.
Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). It was not improper for
the district court to deny a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility based on Franks’ failure to comply with the
conditions of his release. See United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d
878, 882-83 (5th Cir. 1991).
Franks also argues that the district court clearly erred in
determining that he was an organizer or leader in criminal
activity involving five or more participants and increasing his
offense level by four points under § 3B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines. The district court’s determination that Franks’
drug-trafficking scheme involved five individuals including
Franks was supported by reliable information contained in the
Presentence Report. See Vital, 68 F.3d at 120. The district
court did not clearly err in determining that Franks’ offense
level should be increased due to his role as an organizer or
leader in the overall drug-trafficking scheme pursuant to
§ 3B1.1. See United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 769 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 246 (1993).
AFFIRMED.