United States v. Sanford ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 00-51048
Summary Calendar
Civil Docket #W-96-CR-53-1
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MELVIN JAMES SANFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
June 21, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Sanford asserts that the district court clearly
erred in finding him a manager or supervisor of Kenneth Brown, his
confederate in cocaine distribution in Killeen, Texas. The finding
caused a three-point base offense level increase under the
Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute
cocaine, Sanford offered no evidence to dispute the PSR’s
recommendation of this increase, which was predicated on Sanford’s
(a) personal intervention in Brown’s distribution business
(encouraging him to receive more cocaine for resale); (b) fronting
cocaine to Brown, i.e. shipping before payment was made; and (c)
teaching Brown how to “cook” the cocaine into crack, its only
salable concoction in the local drug market.
In the absence of factual controversion by Sanford, we
rely on the accuracy of the PSR. United States v. Sherbak, 950
F.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (5th Cir. 1992). The finding that a defendant
was a manager or supervisor may not be reversed on appeal unless it
is clearly erroneous. United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257
(5th Cir. 1993). These standards compel affirmance of the district
court’s finding. Sanford shepherded Brown’s distribution of crack
cocaine in a way that went beyond a mere buyer-seller relationship.
The cases cited by Sanford are thus distinguishable.
Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the district court
is AFFIRMED.
2