* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-50710

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHERI LEE MORGAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-289-10

Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cheri Lee Morgan appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea

conviction of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Morgan

argues that the district court erred by failing to account for the drugs that she

obtained for personal use, rather than to distribute. She also contends that

there was insufficient evidence to support the quantity and duration of

distribution for which she was held accountable. Additionally, Morgan argues

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50710

2

that the district court clearly erred by denying her an adjustment under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for playing a minor role in the offense.

As part of the factual basis for Morgan’s guilty plea, she admitted that,

beginning in or about January 2003, she obtained methamphetamine in part to

sell to others and in part to support her drug habit. Because she was arrested

in December 2005,the district court’s use of a 35-month period in calculating her

distribution activities is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Betancourt,

422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court based its findings regarding

the quantity of drugs for which Morgan was responsible only on the amountthat

she distributed and did not include the amount she obtained for personal use.

Morgan has not shown that the information the district court relied on in

determining the quantity of drugs was materially untrue. See United States v.

Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, she has not shown that

the district court clearly erred in determining that she distributed at least 1.5

kilograms of methamphetamine. See Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246.

To the extent that Morgan was sentenced based only on her own conduct

in distributing at least 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, she did not play a

minor role in this offense. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th

Cir. 1995). To the extent the district court may have considered her role in the

larger drug operation, the court also did not clearly err in finding that she did

not play a minor role. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th

Cir. 2005). Morgan’s actions were not peripheral to the advancement of the

illicit activity, particularly given her introduction into the operation of women

who were sometimes recruited to participate in it. Additionally, even though she

distributed a smaller quantity of drugs than the other indicted participants,

there was testimony that, of the dealers in this drug operation, she ranked

toward the top of the list. Morgan has not shown that this information was

materially untrue. See Alford, 142 F.3d at 832. 

AFFIRMED.