United States v. Foster ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-50081
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SAMMY DEAN FOSTER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    (W-01-CR-115-1)
    --------------------
    June 14, 2002
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Defendant-Appellant Sammy Dean Foster appeals the sentence
    imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with
    intent to distribute methamphetamine.       Foster argues that the
    district court relied on inaccurate, confusing, and unreliable
    evidence at sentencing to determine the drug quantities for which
    he should be held accountable.    We apply the clearly erroneous
    standard when reviewing a district court’s factual findings of the
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    quantity of drugs implicated by the crime.   United States v. Davis,
    
    76 F.3d 82
    , 84 (5th Cir. 1996).
    By finding the government’s evidence credible and reliable,
    the district court implicitly adopted the officer’s testimony and
    the government’s recommendation that Foster be held responsible for
    at least 1.5 but not more than 5 kilograms of methamphetamine under
    United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(3).   See United States
    v. Golden, 
    17 F.3d 735
    , 737 (5th Cir. 1994).   At sentencing, Foster
    did not rebut the officer’s testimony that supported this finding.
    See United States v. Clark, 
    139 F.3d 485
    , 490 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Even though the officer’s testimony was somewhat imprecise, the
    court’s reliance on it is not precluded because, for sentencing
    purposes, the court could consider estimates of drug quantities.
    See United States v. Alford, 
    142 F.3d 825
    , 832 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Foster has shown neither clear error nor legal error.      His
    sentence is , therefore,
    AFFIRMED.
    2