* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50273

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES EDWARD JOHNSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-97-ALL

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Edward Johnson was convicted following a jury trial for

possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of crack cocaine within

1000 feet of a public elementary school and was sentenced to a 365-month term

of imprisonment. Johnson has appealed his sentence, contending that the

district court clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity applicable for

sentencing and in imposing a two-level enhancement for an aggravating role in

the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50273

2

The appellant argues thatthe district court“double counted” in calculating

the drug quantity for sentencing purposes and that the court should not have

used the presentence report’s estimated weight of .2 grams per rock of crack

cocaine. The district court may adopt the factual findings in the presentence

report if those findings bear sufficient indicia of reliability to support their

probable accuracy. United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2006).

It may extrapolate the drug quantity attributable to the defendant from relevant

and sufficiently reliable evidence. Id. at 267. Johnson presented no evidence

rebutting the probation officer’s findings. See United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d

825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s drug-quantity finding was not

clearly erroneous because it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

In challenging the imposition of the two-level enhancement under

§ 3B1.1(c) for an aggravating role, Johnson argues thatthe evidence reflects that

he was a mere supplier of drugs and that the evidence does not suggest that he

supervised, managed, or organized the sale of drugs. A defendant qualifies for

an adjustment under § 3B1.1(c) if he was the “organizer, leader, manager, or

supervisor of at least one other participant.” United States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d

369, 390 (5th Cir. 2007); see § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). This court reviews the

district court’s factual finding that the defendant was an organizer, leader,

manager, or supervisor under § 3B1.1(c) for clear error. United States v.

Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The record reflects that Arthur Jones sold crack cocaine for Johnson,

Johnson provided the location for the drug sales, and Johnson received all of the

proceeds from Jones’s drug sales. The district court’s finding that Johnson

occupied an aggravating role is plausible in light of the record as a whole and is

not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 330 (5th Cir.

1998).
No. 08-50273

3

Johnson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in

imposing the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.