Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0939-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason ROE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-30857.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2004.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jason Roe appeals the sentence he received on his guilty plea of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We AFFIRM.

Roe’s sole contention is that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence on the ground that'he possessed the handgun in connection with another felony, possession of crack cocaine. Section 2K2.1(b)(5) of the Sentencing Guidelines authorizes a four-level increase in a defendant’s offense level for such conduct. Roe relies on his own hearing testimony, in which he denied having possessed the crack, and the fact that the initial version of the police report erroneously stated that the crack was found on his person.

“This court reviews a district court’s determination of witness credibility [for sentencing purposes] for clear error.” United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 593 (5th Cir.2000). Moreover, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the information the district court relied on is ‘materially untrue.”’ Id. The Ocana court accepted the district court’s credibility determinations even though there were inconsistencies in the government witnesses’ testimony. Id.

Roe contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that he discarded the crack while being chased by Police Detective Coleman. However, the initial police report written by Officers Vincent and Franklin does not invalidate the version of the facts presented by Detective Cóleman and ATF Agent Davenport, because the former two officers were not present when Coleman retrieved the crack. Moreover, although Roe denies having possessed the crack, his brief does not advert to the agent’s testimony that Roe confessed that he had possessed it to sell. Thus the district court’s finding that Roe possessed crack in connection with his firearm possession, based principally on the government witnesses’ testimony, is not clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.