T his ap p eal i s su cce ssive to case n o. 08-3746 an d i s being d ecid ed un d er * Op er ating Proc ed ure 6(b) by the s am e panel . Afte r exam i ni ng the br i ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is u n n ec es sa ry . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) . 

# United States Court of Appeals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it C h ic ag o, I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d June 9, 20 10 * Deci ded A ugust 1 7, 20 10

B efo re D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 10
- 1610 U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. T O Y A M . OL D S, D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o rthe Ea st ern Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 06
- CR
- 207 Rud ol ph T. Rand a, Judg e . O R D E R T oya O lds w as p art of a ring that, starting in the m id-1990 s, sold m il li ons of d oll ars w or th o fco caine in M i l w aukee , W i sco nsi n. She pl eaded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to dist ribute c oc ain e, see 21 U . S. C. §§ 846 , 84 1( a) ( 1) , and w as sente nced as a ca re ero ffender to 188 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. W e v acat ed that sente nce, however, bec ause Olds’ s cr i m i nal h ist or y d id n otqu alify h er for th e c ar ee r-o ffen d er d es ign at ion . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ds , 34 8 NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl yin a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d. R. A pp . P. 32 . 1N o. 10
- 1610 Page 2

F. A pp ’ x 173 , 174 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) . At herr ese ntencing, Ol ds re new ed herar gum ent that her lim ite d role in th e c on sp ira c y w ar ra n te d a m in or -ro le re d u c tio n . See U . S. S. G. § 3 B1. 2(b) . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd isa gr ee d an d se n te n c ed h er to 84 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. Olds a dm i ts sel l i ng o nl y 5 00 gr am s o fco caine in l ate 20 05 and thus cont ends that she pl aye d a m inorr ol e in the conspi ra cy. Alm ostev ery o therpart i ci pant dis tr ibuted substa nti al l y m or e co caine, she conte nd s; the proba ti on o ffi ceres ti m ate d that he r c od efe n d an ts d ist rib u te d be tw ee n5 an d 15 0 k ilog ra m s e ac h . Y etth e p ro b at ion offic er d id not agr ee that Olds’ s s al es w er e l i m i ted to j ust tw o i n 200 5 a s s he as ser ted; the proba ti on offi cerr epor ted, and the dist ri ct c ourtfound, that Olds had be en di str ibuti ng co caine as p ar t o f th e c on sp ira c y for se ve nye ar s, in te rru p te d on ly w h en sh e w as inc ar c er at ed . Ac c o r d i n gt o a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i ma t e , o v e rt i me s h e t o o h a d d i s t r ib u t e d u p t o 2 k i l o g r a ms of c oc ain e. Because the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa m i nor - ro l e r educti on r est s o n a fi nd i ng o ff act, ou r re vie w is for c lea r er ro r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 537F.3d 72 2, 72 4 (7 th C ir. 2008 ) . A se nt en cingc o ur t i s en ti tl ed to r elyo n f ac ts in the pr es en te nc e r epo r t unl es s th e d efe n d an t e st ab lish es th atth e re p or t is ina c c u ra te or u n re liab le. See U nited Sta tes v. M oreno-Pad il la , 602 F.3d 80 2, 80 8-0 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ) , petiti o n fo r cert. filed(J une 25, 20 10) (N o. 10 -51 28 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa l i nas , 365 F.3d 58 2, 58 7-8 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ) ; U .S.S.G . § 6A 1.3 . A ba re d en ial of it s t ru th is n otsu fficie n t t o c h alle n ge th e a c c u ra c y of a p re se n te n c e re p or t. U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 604 F.3d 38 1, 38 5 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ) . Ol ds, thr o ugh c o uns el, di sa vo wed the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r ’ s ta l l yo fhe rdr ugs al es, b ut sh e offered no evid en ce to con trad ict the p robationofficer’s cal cu lation. Th e d istri ct cou rt w as en tit led to ad op t th atca lcu lat ion, an d d id so . T h e qu an tit y c alc u lat ion is n otcle ar ly er ro neous. AF F I RMED.