United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 97-2416SI

____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court * for the Southern District * of Iowa. Rodney Robles, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 1998 Filed: March 26, 1998

___________ Befo re RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and WOLLMAN, Circui t Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Rodney Robles appeals the sentence he received for conspiracy to distribut e cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). We affirm.
I.
In May of 1996, police were alerted to drug-related activity at an apartment i n C o lumbus Junction, Iowa, whose occupants included Genoveva Mata and Robles. AThe Hon. Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the 1 Southern District of Iowa. -2- cont rolledpurchase was arranged, and on May 23 a drug enforcement agent bough t 1.74 grams of cocaine from Robles and Mata. On May 31, upon informa tion that others affi liatedwith the drug operation were delivering 1.5 kilograms of cocaine to Mata’ s apartment, agents obtained and executed a search wa rrant. They seized a one-kilogram package of cocaine, as well as various scales, containers, and drug paraphernalia

. Robles and the other occupants of the apartment were arrested.
Robles pl eaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He stipulated that , beginning on or before March 1, 1996, he had participated in the distribution of cocaine ou t of Mata’s apartment, by “frequently bringing numerous individuals to [th e apartment] . . . for the purpose of having them b uy cocaine from Genoveva Mata in one gram, one sixteent

h ounce, and one-eighth ounce amounts.” Further, he “occasionally pers onally possessed and sold cocaine to individuals who came to [the apartment]. ” Appellee’s App. at 12 (Stipulation of Facts). The presentence report recomme nded that Robles be held responsible for a total of 1.1 69 kilograms, comprised of the controlled purchase amount, the amount seize d from the apartment, and amounts that Mata testified had been sold out of the apartment. At sentencin g, the District Court adopted this recommendation and sentenced Robles 1 to the mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months.
Robles now challenges the attribution to him of the kilogram of cocaine seized fromthe a partment, the finding which resulted in the application of the mandator y minimum sentence.-3- II. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that a defendant may be held responsible for ac ts of his coconspirators that were “reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions . . . i n furtheran ce of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)

. Robles ar gues that the District Court failed to determine the scope of his jointl y under taken criminal activity after Robles objected to its characterization in hi s presentencing report. Alternatively, he claims that the Court’s determination wa s incorrect. We hold that the District Court’s d etermination of drug quantity was not clear error. See United States v. Flores , 73 F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 2568 (1996). The sentencing transcript shows that the District Court complied wi th Federal Rule of Crimin al Procedure 32(c)(1), which requires a sentencing court to make specifi c findin gs regarding factual determinations in a presentence report that a defendant ha s challenged. The Court acknowledged that Robles “objected in [his] letter of objections to just about every paragraph that referred to amo unts of cocaine.” Sentencing Tr. at 58. After considering the evidence presented by Robles and th e government, it made specific findings: [Robles] certainly knew or had every reason to know about the 1054 grams of cocaine . . .. He was pr esent. His activity as part of the conspiracy was to be a distributor. Even if that one large amount was not going to b e distributed by him, he knew about other amounts that were being brought in. He knew that in order to support this kind of a conspiracy, it wa s necessar y to have people selling in smaller amounts. He is foun d responsible for that as relevant conduct and foreseeable amou nts of cocaine.
Id. at 68. It concluded that “the exhibits and the documents that have been received in evidence and the statements in the presentence report that are not objected to support-4-

all of the findings of the author of the presentence investigation report.” Id. Although “we emphasize the value of specific references to individual pieces of trial testimony,” we believe that the Court’s findings sufficiently addressed both the scope of Robles' s jointl y undertaken criminal activity and the foreseeability of his coconspirators’ acts

. United States v. Grajales-Montoya , 117 F.3d 356, 364 (8t h Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 446 (1 997). (Rule 32(c)(1) satisfied where court “acknowledged [the defendant’s ] objections to the PSR, expressly rejected them, and stated that it did so pursuant t o hearing all of the evidence presented and reviewing its notes”). Further, the District Court did not err in determining that the one- kilogram package sei zed on May 31 was part of the jointly undertaken criminal activity to which Roble s agreed. Robles asserts that he would not have been involved in the distribution of this particular kilogram because it was intended to be sold as a unit, by others in th e conspiracy, and not in the smaller amounts in which he customarily dealt. However , there was evidence that, on May 31, Robles offered to sell cocaine to an informant out of Mata’s apartment. When the police executed the search warrant later that day, th e only cocaine found, and out of which a sale t hat day presumably would have been made, was the o ne-kilogram package at issue. Evidence also suggested that, though Robles’s coconspirators were trying to arran ge a whole-kilogram sale, there was a possibility that th e kilogram would have to be broken up for sale. Robles had no “limited agreement , explicit or im plicit, when he joined the conspiracy . . . that he was only in for a singl e deal.” United States v. Flores , 73 F.3d at 834. Rather, where Robles “intended t o conduct future transactions . . . and was simply deprived of the opportunity to do s o because he was arrested before additional transactions,” id. , he cannot disclai m responsibility for th e drugs bought and kept in reserve to supply those future, additional transactions. The record supports the District Court’s finding that, reg ardless of whether Robles would hav e been directly involved with all of the seized kilogram, he was an activ e enough participant in the conspiracy to be liable for it. It is true that Robles’s-5-

participa tion was minor compared to that of his coconspirators -- accordingly, h e received a t wo-level reduction in his offense level. However, by his own admission , Ro bles brought customers to the apartment “frequently.” Mata maintained that thes e transa ctions would occur a couple of times during the week, and almost every twent y min utes on the week ends. From the evidence before it, the Court was within its rights to find that the amounts being purchased and stored at the apartme nt for distribution were both withi n the scope of the criminal activity Robles had undertaken, and reasonabl y foreseeable to him.
We therefore affirm the District Court’s sentence. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.