* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-21090

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH W. BOULDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-94-137-9)

December 5, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Boulds appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine, and challenge s the use of a prior state

conviction in his criminal history calculations and the district court’s failure to2

make specific findings of disputed fact issues at sentencing. Finding no error, we

affirm.

Background

On August 15, 1994 Boulds and 11 other defendants were charged with

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine. The

i ndictment charged that Boulds acted in concert with several others to acquire crack

cocaine for transportation and distribution in Waller County, Texas, charging that

they obtained the transpo rtation used and were present for negotiations and delivery

of the contraband.

Prior to the court’s acceptance of the guilty plea Boulds tendered in

conjunction with a plea agreement , the prosecutor informed the court that the

evidence the government planned to introduce would fully support the charges in

the indictment. Specifically, the prosecutor stated that Boulds acted in concert with

the two principal o ffenders and that “the evidence would establish that . . . Mr.

Kenneth Boulds facilitated by on occasion acquiring crack cocaine for redistribution, as well as assisting in the transportation and return of crack cocaine

to the Hempstead, Waller County, Texas area.” When interrogated, Boulds

informed the court that the facts as recited by the prosecutor were true and that he

intended to commit the acts as described.1 Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f); United States v. Oberski , 734 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1984).

2 United States v. Adams

, 961 F.2d 505 (5th C ir. 1992); U nited States v. MontoyaComacho , 644 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1981).

3 Adams; Oberski

.

3 At sentencing the district court considered Boulds’ objections to the PSR,

although the objections were not filed timely and were not accompanied by

affidavits or other evidence contradicti ng the PSR. All objections were rejected

and the PSR was ado pted as written. Boulds was sentenced to prison for 188

months, together with five years of supervised release and a $5000 fine. Boulds

timely appealed.

Analysis

Boulds challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his guilty plea.

A court may not enter judgment on a guilty plea unless it is satisfied that there is

a factual basis for the plea. 1 The factual basis must appear in the record and must

support each essential element of the crime. 2 We review a finding that an adequate

factual basis exists for accepting a guilty plea under the clearly erroneous standard

. 3

The factual predicat e given the district court, which Boulds confirmed as true,

provides a sufficient factual basis for acceptance of Boulds’ guilty plea.

Boulds next contends that the d istrict court erred by including a state4 United States v. Thomas , 973 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1992).

5 See United States v. Brown

, 29 F.3d 953 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied

, 115 S.Ct. 587 (1994);

United States v. Rodriguez , 897 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied , 498 U.S. 857 (1990).

4 conviction for possession of a controlled substance in his criminal history

calculations under section 4A1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Boulds insists that

the prior state offense was part of the offense of conviction. The record does not

support this claim. Boulds was arrested on January 23, 1990 for the subject state

offense. The criminal conduct charged in the instant indictment commenced on

Fe bruary 12, 1990. The two offenses are separate and discrete and there was no

error in Boulds’ criminal history calculation. 4

Finally, Boulds maintains that the district court failed to make specific

findings on disputed issues of fact in the PSR. Boulds offered no evidence to rebut

the contents of the PSR and the district court acted entirely within its discretion in

adopting the facts as detailed in the PSR. 5

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.