* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60671

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

J. B. REED,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:01-CR-140-1-D

-------------------- February 13, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

J.B. Reed appeals hi s guilty-plea conviction of aiding and

abetting others in the distribution of cocaine base in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 84 1(a) and (b)(1)(C). He argues that the district

court erred under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 in holding him accountable for

46.6 grams of cocaine base distributed by himself and his

co-defendants. He argues there was no evidence to support a

finding that he was part of a conspiracy and, thus, that he should2

be held accountable for the conduct of his co-defendants.

Alternatively, he argues that, even if there was an adequate

evidentiary basis for these facts in the presentence report (PSR),

he rebutted this evidence with his sworn test imony at the

sentencing hearing and the Government did not offer any thing to

controvert his rebuttal evidence.

“[A] defendant’s base offense lev el for the offense of

conviction must be determined on the basis of all ‘relevant

conduct’ as defined in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.” U nited States v. Vital

,

68 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1995). Relevant conduct includes “all

reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance

of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.”

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). We review for clear error the district

court’s determination of what constitutes relevant conduct. U nited

States v. Wall , 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999).

The PS R described a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base

which included Reed, his brother, and two other individuals. The

PSR indicated that there was an investigation of the conspiracy and

Reed’s involvement from May 8, 2001, until June 26, 2001. The PSR

also detailed the amount of drugs that were distributed by the

members of the conspiracy during that time.

A defendant who objects to the sentencing court’s

consideration of information in the PSR bears the burden of proving

t hat the information is “materially untrue, inaccurate o r

unreliable.” U nited States v. Angulo

, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.3 G:\OPIN-SC\02-60671.opn.wpd 1991). The only evidence offered by Reed to demonstrate that the

statements in the PSR were unreliable, un true, or inaccurate was

his self-serving testimony that he was not involved in the stated

conspiracy. The district court obviously did not find Reed’s

testimony credible, and we will not disturb this credibility

determination by the district court. S ee United States v. Edwards

,

65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e).

Accordingly, based on th e information contained in the PSR,

the district court did not clearly err in holding Reed accountable

for 46.6 grams of cocaine base. Reed’s sentence is therefore

AFFIRMED.