_____________ No. 96-1618NE

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Danny W. Crosby, * [PUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: September 13, 1996 Filed: September 27, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
Danny W. Crosby appeals his conviction and sentence for conspirac y to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine
. Unlike C rosby, we conclude there was ample evidence to support hi s conviction. Crosby's coconspirators testified that Crosby financed trips to pick up methamphetamine, received a share of the drugs, and ha d conver sations with them about selling methamphetamine. Also, a dru g enfo rcement agent testified that the amounts of methamphetamine Crosb y possessed were consistent with distribution rath er than personal use. The witn esses' credibility was for the jury to decide. United States v
. Reeves , 85 F.3d 203, 206 (8th Cir. 1996). Challenging his sentence, Crosby first argues the district cour t erroneously attribute d to him certain amounts of methamphetamine that his coconspirators purchased without Crosby's knowle dge or delivered to Crosby for Crosby's personal use only.

### -2-

The district court di d not commit clear error, however, because there was evidence showing Crosby reasonably should have foreseen the total amount of drugs purchased, and Crosby sold the drugs he received rather than usin g them himself. United States v. Flores , 73 F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 2568 (1996). Next, Crosby argues the district cou rt improperly increased Crosby's base offense level for obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1. 1 (1995). A ccording to Crosby, the district court simply relied on th e jury's rejection of his testimony without making an express finding that Crosby had committed perjury. Contrary to Crosby's view, the sentencing transcript shows the district court expressly found that Crosby had lied about his involvement in the drug conspiracy. F urther, the district court documented each element of the alleged perjury i n keeping with the Supreme Court's requirement i n United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. 87, 95 (1993). We thus conclude the district court's finding that Crosby had testifie d falsel y was properly based on the court's independent evaluation o f Crosby's trial testimony. See United States v. Turk , 21 F.3d 309, 313 (8t h Cir. 1994). We do recommend, however, that sentencing judges make clear they have evaluated the defendant's testimony ina light most favorable to the defendant. See United States v. Willis , 940 F.2d 1136, 1140 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing § 3C1.1 n.1). Additionally, the record supports th e district court's determination that Crosby was more than a minimal or minor participant in the conspiracy , see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a)-(b), and Crosby is not entitled to a decrease in his ba se offense level merely because his coconspirators were th e ringle aders and received less severe sentences. United States v
. Rodamaker , 56 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 1995); see Reev es , 83 F.3d at 207. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Crosb y a downward departure based on Crosby's difficult family circumstances at the time he joined the conspiracy. See Koon v. United States ,

### -3-

116 S. Ct. 2035, 2046 (1996). The Sentencing Guidelines discourag e downward departures based on family ties and responsibilities, see U.S.S.G . § 5H1.6, and the district court properly determi ned Crosby's situation was not ex ceptional enough to warrant a departure, especially since Crosb y contin ued his criminal conduct after his family situation improved, se e Koon , 116 S. Ct. at 2045.

Ha ving rejected Crosby's contentions, we affirm his conviction an d sentence.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.