* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 97-20912

Summary Calendar

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD BELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-96-133-1

____________________________________

October 5, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Bell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and

with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Bell argues that the district court improperly

held him accountable for drugs which were not related to his offense. We review for clear error the

sentencing court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs involved. U nited States v. Mergerson

, 4 F.3d

337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993).

A drug courier for Bell was arrested with 874 grams of cocaine base in his possession. Bell’s

argument that the entire 847 grams was not foreseeable to him is disingenuous given the admission

that he was aware of the entire amount of cocaine base being carried by Henderson. Bell also argues

that he was unaware of 484 grams of co caine base found in a purse during a search of one of his

confederate’s residence. Bell has produced nothing but his self-serving denial that he did not knowabout the cocaine base found in the purse. The district court did not clearly err by including these

amounts of cocaine ba se in t he amount involved in Bell’s drug conspiracy. The other amounts of

narcotics challenged by Bell were not significant to his sentence and will not be addressed.

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines directs sentencing courts to increase by two

levels the base offense level of a defendant convicted of certain drug-related offenses if "a dangerous

weapon (including a firearm) was possessed." The district court’s decision to apply this section is

a factual determination which we also review only for clear error. U nited States v. Garza

, 118 F.3d

278, 285 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied

, 118 S. Ct. 699 (1998). The presentence report (PSR) showed

that numerous weapons were found in the residenc e in which Bell was arrested while in the act of

"cooking" cocaine base. It is not clearly improbable that these five weapons were connected with the

offense. The district court did not clearly err in this matter.

Bell argues that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 by not making specific finding

on his objections to the PSR. This argument goes to Rule 32(c)(1), which requires the sentencing

court to make findings regarding controverted facts in the PSR, or to state that those facts will not

be taken into account at sentencing. The district co urt sat isfied the mandate of Rule 32 when it

overruled the objections and adopted the PSR because the findings in the PSR were “so clear” as not

t o leave this court to “second guess” the basis for the district court’s decision. U nited S tates v.

Carreon , 11 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.