UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4271

THEODORE DIZELOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Alexander Williams Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-63-AW)

Argued: May 2, 2000

Decided: July 19, 2000

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS

and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert Charles Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Steven Michael Dettelbach, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. ON

BRIEF: Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Greenbelt,

Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Theodore Dizelos appeals his convictions and sentence

for owning and operating an automobile "chop-shop," see 18

U.S.C.A. § 2322 (West Supp. 2000), knowingly tampering with or

removing vehicle identification numbers ("VINs"), see 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 511(a)(1) (West 2000), possessing with the intent to sell a vehicle

knowing that the VIN had been removed or altered, see 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 2321 (West Supp. 2000), and conspiracy to commit these crimes,

see 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (West 2000). We affirm.

I.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the

Government, see United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 854 (4th Cir.

1996) (en banc), revealed the following facts. In early June 1995,

John Smale purchased a 1995 Chevrolet Geo Prism, champagne in

color, to replace his 1995 Chevrolet Geo Prism, green in color, which

had been stolen in April. Noticing that his "new" Prism had characteristics very similar to his stolen vehicle, including for example a chink

in the windshield, Smale had the vehicle inspected and learned that

he had, in fact, repurchased his own vehicle. The vehicle had been

"replated" with a VIN from a wrecked vehicle sold at auction.

Police officers began an investigation, which led them to Dizelos

and his business, Rockville Autosales T/A Beltsville Motors. A June

21, 1995 search of Dizelos' home and business uncovered stolen

vehicles, vehicle parts from stolen vehicles, numerous loose VINs

which had been removed from stolen cars (including the VIN plate

from Smale's vehicle), anti-theft "clubs," car radios, and various personal effects from stolen cars, as well as owner's manuals, titles, and

business documents corresponding to recently stolen vehicles. In

Dizelos' home driveway, police recovered three recently stolen vehi-

 2
cles with the VINs at various stages of removal and, in his garage,

another stolen car with a punched out ignition and screwdriver in the

front seat. During the search of the home, Dizelos' wife drove up in

yet another stolen vehicle.

Armed with this information, police contacted area automobile

dealerships and obtained records for vehicles which Dizelos and his

employees had sold to them during the previous year, obtained title

histories, and began locating the current owners of vehicles that could

be linked to Dizelos' business. Each vehicle with a VIN that had been

switched, altered, or removed was inspected by a law enforcement

officer and, through the use of confidential VINs, was identified by

its true VIN.

In summary, Dizelos was operating a "chop-shop" and "replating"

business. Dizelos' employees removed the VINs from stolen cars

brought to Dizelos and replaced them with those of wrecked vehicles

which Dizelos or his coconspirators bought at area auctions. The

vehicles were then sold to innocent Maryland and Virginia auto dealers, which in turn sold them to innocent purchasers. During their

investigation, police linked over 60 stolen cars to Dizelos and his

business.

Dizelos was subsequently indicted by the grand jury on one count

of owning and operating an automobile chop-shop, see 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 2322, two counts of knowingly tampering with or removing VINs,

see 18 U.S.C.A. § 511(a)(1), one count of possessing with the intent

to sell a vehicle knowing that the VIN had been removed or altered,

see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2321, and one count of conspiracy to commit these

crimes, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. Following a jury trial, Dizelos was

convicted on all counts. His ensuing motion for a new trial was

denied, and he was sentenced to a total of 64 months imprisonment,

three years of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of

$978,130.95.

II.

A.

We first address Dizelos' contention that the district court erred in

denying his motion to reopen the testimony or grant a continuance

 3
and, after conviction, in denying his motion for a new trial to allow

Dizelos to present the statement of an additional witness, Kevin Tong.

We find no error.

During the trial, Dizelos asserted that the chop-shop was being

operated by independent salesmen and others who had rented space

from him and that he had no knowledge of the illegal activity taking

place on his business premises. On Friday, November 6, 1998, the

defense rested its case, leaving only closing arguments and jury

instructions to be completed. Over the weekend, Dizelos claimed that

a man named Kevin Tong contacted him after seeing a televison

report on the trial. Tong told Dizelos that he believed the wrong man

was being prosecuted and agreed to meet with Dizelos' counsel and

a defense investigator that weekend.

On Monday, November 9, Dizelos' counsel moved to reopen the

testimony, not to present Tong's testimony, but rather to present the

testimony of the defense investigator as to what Tong had told him

during their interview. Dizelos' counsel had not served Tong with a

subpoena and Tong was not voluntarily present in court. Additionally,

Dizelos' counsel represented that Tong had advised them that he

would not appear in court even if subpoenaed. Hence, Dizelos sought

to reopen the case to call the investigator to testify as to what Tong

had told them during the weekend interview. Specifically, Dizelos'

counsel represented that Tong had told the investigator that he had

assisted in bringing stolen cars to Dizelos' business, but that he had

never dealt with Dizelos personally and that, instead, a man named

"John" had told him not to come by the shop if he saw the "Greek

guy." J.A. 29, 88. Because Tong had been told not to deal with the

"Greek guy," Tong believed that Dizelos must not have been involved

in the car-stealing and chop-shop scheme. As an alternative to the

investigator's testimony, Dizelos sought a continuance to allow the

parties to attempt to relocate and subpoena Tong. The district court

denied both motions.

Over four months after his conviction, but before Dizelos was sentenced, Dizelos' new counsel filed a motion for a new trial based

upon the same grounds. This time, Tong had been served with a subpoena to appear at Dizelos' sentencing hearing, but made good on his

earlier promise not to appear. Instead, Dizelos presented affidavits of

 4
his prior and current counsel concerning the substance of the testimony that Tong would have allegedly offered. The Government, having also located Tong in the interim, submitted two statements of

investigating FBI agents which contradicted those of Dizelos' counsel. According to these statements, Tong had denied any involvement

in stealing cars, did not understand why Dizelos' counsel was trying

to involve him in the matter, and stated that, as far as Tong knew,

Dizelos "was running the show" and was "the boss" at Beltsville

Motors. J.A. 51. The district court denied Dizelos' motion for a new

trial.

1.

We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Dizelos' motion for a new trial based upon the proffered

testimony. See United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 254 (4th Cir.

1997). A motion for a new trial must be made within"7 days after the

verdict or finding of guilty," unless based upon newly discovered evidence, in which case the motion may be made within three years after

final judgment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. In determining whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial

based upon newly discovered evidence, we apply the following test:

(i) is the evidence, in fact, newly discovered; (ii) are facts

alleged from which the court may infer due diligence on the

part of the movant; (iii) is the evidence relied upon not

merely cumulative or impeaching; (iv) is the evidence material to the issues involved; and (v) would the evidence probably result in acquittal at a new trial?

United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting

United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989)).

Although the identity of Kevin Tong was known prior to the conclusion of Dizelos' trial, Dizelos did not file his motion for a new trial

until more than four months after his conviction. Dizelos acknowledges, as he must, that the motion was not filed within the requisite

seven-day time limit, but asserts that the district court nevertheless

erred in denying his motion because it was based upon newly discovered evidence. The district court, however, denied Dizelos' motion for

 5
a new trial because the request was untimely and was not based upon

"newly discovered" evidence. Additionally, the court found that the

evidence was of questionable admissibility and, even if admitted,

would have made no difference in the outcome of the trial. We agree.

First, we reject Dizelos' assertion that the evidence was "newly discovered" because, although Tong had come forward and Dizelos

knew the general substance of Tong's statement prior to the guilty

verdict, the statement had not been "fully developed" within the seven

days following the guilty verdict. Dizelos' counsel had met with Tong

in person prior to the conviction and, to the extent the information

needed development, Rule 33 allows a defendant to request an extension of the seven-day deadline in order to develop such evidence. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 ("A motion for a new trial based on any other

grounds may be made only within 7 days after the verdict or finding

of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the

7-day period."). Such a request was never made in this case.

Second, the district court, although acknowledging that Tong's

statement could be construed as a statement against his penal interest

under Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, did not abuse

its discretion in concluding that the proffered testimony lacked sufficient indices of reliability to be admissible under either the penal

interest exception of Rule 804(b)(3) or the residual hearsay exception

of Rule 807. See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) (providing that "[a] statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered

to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement"

(emphasis added)); Fed. R. Evid. 807 (providing that under certain

circumstances, a statement not specifically covered by a specific hearsay exception "but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of

trustworthiness" may be admitted). As noted by the district court,

Tong refused to come to court to offer the purported exculpatory testimony, despite being under subpoena. The alleged statement to the

defense investigator was vague, speculative, and subject to various

slants, spins, and conflicting inferences. There was evidence that just

prior to the sentencing hearing, Tong had wholly denied making the

alleged statement. And, in addition to the fact that Dizelos was the

sole owner and operator of the business from which the chop-shop

primarily operated, overwhelming evidence had been seized during

 6
the search, particularly that found at Dizelos' home, which revealed

that Dizelos was not only involved, but was leading the chop-shop

operation.

In the end, Dizelos' proffered "new" testimony was that of a

defense investigator to the effect that Tong told him that he believed,

based upon yet another hearsay statement of one of Dizelos' employees, that Dizelos was not involved in the chop-shop operation because

Tong had been told not to deal directly with Dizelos. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court erred in finding that

the evidence was unreliable and that, in any event, admission of the

conflicting hearsay statements would not have resulted in an acquittal

at a new trial.

2.

For similar reasons, we reject Dizelos' appeal of the district court's

denial of his motion to either reopen the case to permit him to present

additional testimony or to continue the case to allow the parties an

opportunity to find Tong. The denial of a motion to reopen a case is

a decision which also rests within the district court's sound discretion.

See United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 510 (4th Cir. 1996). In determining whether this discretion has been abused,"we examine (1)

whether [the defendant] provided a reasonable explanation for failing

to present the evidence in [his] case-in-chief; (2) whether the evidence

was relevant, admissible, or helpful to the jury; and (3) whether

reopening the case would have infused the evidence with distorted

importance, prejudiced the opposing party's case, or precluded the

opposing party from meeting the evidence." Id. at 511. We review the

district court's denial of Dizelos' motion for a continuance for an

abuse of discretion as well. See United States v. Speed, 53 F.3d 643,

644 (4th Cir. 1995).

The district judge denied Dizelos' motion to reopen his case or for

a continuance, made just prior to closing arguments. Noting that the

investigator's proffered testimony would consist of the hearsay statements of Tong, and of an additional person to Tong concerning

Dizelos' involvement, the district court concluded that the testimony

was vague, speculative, of questionable probative value, and wholly

uncorroborated. The district court also found no reason for a continu-

 7
ance of the case to allow the parties to find Tong. Tong had refused

to come forward voluntarily and had told defense counsel that he

would refuse to obey a subpoena. Additionally, defense counsel indicated that Tong would likely invoke his Fifth Amendment right not

to incriminate himself and, therefore, refuse to testify even if he did

appear. And, of course, reopening the case to present the investigator's statement "would have infused the evidence with distorted

importance, prejudiced the [Government's] case, [and] precluded the

[Government] from meeting the evidence." Abbas, 74 F.3d at 511.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dizelos' motion to reopen the testimony or, in the

alternative, for a continuance.

B.

Dizelos next contends that the Government's thirty-two month

delay between the June 1995 search of his home and business and his

February 1998 indictment violated his due process rights under the

Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971);

United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977). To determine whether

a preindictment delay violates a defendant's due process rights, we

examine (1) whether the defendant has demonstrated actual prejudice

from the delay, and (2) if so, whether the government's reasons for

the delay justify the prejudice to the defendant. See United States v.

Automated Med. Lab., Inc., 770 F.2d 399, 403-04 (4th Cir. 1985).

"The basic inquiry then becomes whether the [g]overnment's action

in prosecuting after substantial delay violates`fundamental conceptions of justice' or `the community's sense of fair play and decency.'"

Id. at 404 (quoting Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790). Thus, for example, due

process "would require dismissal of the indictment if it were shown

at trial that the pre-indictment delay . . . caused substantial prejudice

to [defendant's] right to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused." Marion,

404 U.S. at 324. We will not reverse a district court's denial of a

motion to dismiss for preindictment delay unless its findings are

clearly erroneous. See United States v. Burns , 990 F.2d 1426, 1435

(4th Cir. 1993).

Dizelos admits that there is no evidence of intentional delay on the

part of the Government to gain a tactical advantage. Rather, he asserts

 8
that the Government's reasons for the delay do not justify the prejudice he has allegedly suffered. Specifically, Dizelos complains

because law enforcement officials, after inspecting and photographing

the stolen vehicles, released the vehicles back to the rightful owners

rendering it difficult, if not impossible, for Dizelos to inspect the

vehicles.

First, the district court's finding that Dizelos had failed to demonstrate actual prejudice is not clearly erroneous. Dizelos' burden, to

"show . . . actual substantial prejudice," Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d

900, 905 (4th Cir. 1996), was a heavy one. Although he did not have

access to the replated vehicles in this case, the unavailability was not

the result of the delay in the indictment. Once the stolen vehicles were

identified and photographed by the law enforcement officers, they

were returned to their rightful owners as soon as possible. Dizelos

essentially conceded to the district court that he could not identify

what, if anything, he could have discovered had he had the opportunity to inspect the vehicles, offering little more than a speculative

assertion that he may have discovered that they had not been replated

at all. However, such "potential prejudice and the passage of time" are

not sufficient to establish a due process claim based upon preindictment delay, Marion, 404 U.S. at 323; see also Jones, 94 F.3d

at 906, nor is an asserted general deficiency in developing a potential

defense, see Automated, 770 F.2d at 403. Accordingly, we conclude

that the district court did not err in deciding that Dizelos' showing

was insufficient to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating actual,

substantial prejudice from preindictment delay.

Second, after the search warrants were executed, law enforcement

officers proceeded to link the myriad stolen cars, car parts, and personal property to their rightful owners, and to contact area dealerships

which had purchased the chop-shop vehicles. Title histories and other

documentary evidence required exploration and time was needed to

inspect the vehicles and to interview the witnesses. Further complicating matters was the fact that, in addition to there being three separate

prosecutors involved in handling the case, Dizelos was represented by

four separate defense attorneys at various times during the investigatory process who were engaged in preindictment discussions with the

Government. And, these discussions, of course, included efforts on

the part of Dizelos' counsel to persuade the Government to delay or

 9
forgo indictment altogether. Accordingly, the district court also did

not err in concluding that the delay, although lengthy, was not an

unreasonable or unjustified one due to the complexity of the case, the

extensive nature of the investigation, the number of counsel involved,

and the ongoing negotiations regarding pleas and whether an indictment would be necessary. See Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 796 (holding that

prosecution of a defendant after a good-faith continuing investigation

"does not deprive [defendant] of due process, even if his defense

might have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time").

C.

Dizelos next asserts that the district court erred in failing to instruct

the jury that willfulness is an essential element of a violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 511(a)(1), and one required by the due process clause of

the Fifth Amendment. We review the district court's refusal to give

a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 367 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525

U.S. 1141 (1999).

Section 511(a)(1) makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly

remove or alter VIN plates:

(a) A person who --

(1) knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers

with, or alters an identification number for a motor

vehicle or motor vehicle part . . . .

. . . .

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more

than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S.C.A. § 511(a)(1). Dizelos requested that the jury also be

instructed that, in order to convict, it must find that Dizelos acted

"with knowledge that [his] conduct [was] unlawful and with intent to

do something the law forbids. That is to say, with a bad purpose to

disobey or disregard the law." J.A. 107. The district court refused.

 10
In United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102 (4th Cir. 1990), this

court specifically recognized that, while § 511(a)(1) requires that a

person "knowingly" remove, obliterate, tamper with or alter the VIN

to be convicted, "`[k]nowingly' in this context means only `knowing

action' by the defendant." Id. at 110 (citing United States v. Enochs,

857 F.2d 491, 492 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that"section 511(a) does

not require that the defendant act with specific intent" to violate the

law)); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 262 (4th Cir.

1997) (en banc) (holding that the Clean Water Act's"knowing" mens

rea requires only that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal, not that he know that his conduct was illegal). The district court properly instructed the jury as to § 511(a)'s "knowing"

requirement and, accordingly, did not err in refusing Dizelos' request

that the jury be provided with the proposed additional instruction that

it must find that Dizelos acted with specific intent or a purpose to disobey the law.

III.

We turn now to Dizelos' challenges to his sentence. Specifically,

Dizelos asserts that the district court erred in calculating the loss

attributable to him under the sentencing guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") Manual § 2F1.1 (1998), and in finding

that he was an "organizer or leader" of an"otherwise extensive" criminal activity, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We address these contentions

in turn.

A.

Dizelos' first challenge to his sentence centers on his assertion that

the trial court erred in imposing an eleven-level increase in his base

offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1. Section 2F1.1(b)(1)(L)

provides for an eleven-level increase in the base offense level of six

for offenses involving fraud or deceit if the loss exceeds $800,000.

Generally, valuation of loss in the case of theft is determined by the

fair market "value of the money, property, or services unlawfully

taken." U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1, comment. (n.8),§ 2B1.1, comment. (n.2).

In calculating the loss figure for purposes of sentencing under

§ 2F1.1, however, "the loss need not be determined with precision."

U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.9). Rather,"[t]he court need only

 11
make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information." Id. We review a district court's finding as to the amount of loss

attributable to criminal conduct for clear error. See United States v.

Parsons, 109 F.3d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1997).

In this case, the district court valued the loss attributable to

Dizelos' conduct at $978,130.93, based upon a detailed report of loss

compiled in connection with Dizelos' presentence report. Specifically, Dizelos was held accountable for two categories of losses. The

first consisted of the loss to the owners of the stolen vehicles (approximately $28,599) and to the insurance companies for payments made

to the owners (approximately $823,796). The second category of

losses consisted of the amounts paid by the purchasers of replated

vehicles from Dizelos' business ($603,898.24), minus the salvage

amounts recovered when the vehicles were sold at auction

($478,163.17). Finding that the loss calculations were "very detailed,

clearly supported, very precise," the district court adopted the presentence report calculations. J.A. 223. Dizelos, however, claimed error

in the calculation on a number of grounds, the end result of which,

he contends, would place the total loss at less than $120,000 and, consequently, the offense level increase at six instead of eleven. See

U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(G).

With regard to the first category of loss, Dizelos asserts that he

should not be held accountable for the $823,796 paid by the insurance

companies to the victims of the initial automobile thefts because,

while the evidence supported a finding that Dizelos obtained stolen

vehicles, there was insufficient, reliable evidence to directly connect

Dizelos to the actual thefts of the vehicles. Alternatively, Dizelos

asserts that he was improperly held responsible for five of these stolen

vehicles, valued at $50,000, because only parts from the vehicles

were recovered and that the amounts paid to insurance companies

improperly included other incidental losses associated with the thefts,

such as storage charges, towing fees, and personal property.

With regard to the second category of loss, Dizelos complains that

he was given an insufficient "credit" for the resale of the vehicles sold

at auction because the amount recovered was less than fair market

value. In other words, Dizelos claims that he was entitled to an undetermined larger credit against the loss figure measured by the amount

 12
that the dealerships paid for the replated vehicles because, by selling

at an auto auction instead of at retail, the dealerships recouped less

than they could have for the replated vehicles. And finally, Dizelos

asserts that the loss figure improperly included $40,000 in sales taxes

incurred by customers who purchased the replated vehicles because

the consumers could have obtained a refund.

Having considered the totality of the evidence presented, as well as

the detailed loss figures ascertained for Dizelos' presentence report,

we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in valuing the loss

attributable to Dizelos for his chop-shop activities, particularly given

§ 2F1.1's provision that "the loss need not be determined with precision," but rather need only be a "reasonable estimate of the loss, given

the available information." U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.9). As

noted by the district court, the conspiracy for which Dizelos was convicted involved an elaborate scheme that lasted for at least several

months, and which involved sixty-seven known stolen vehicles. With

regard to Dizelos' specific challenges, we, like the district court, find

no merit to Dizelos' invitation to separate the act of vehicle theft from

the conspiracy for which he was convicted. The indictment specifically charged that, in operating the chop-shop, Dizelos and his coconspirators obtained stolen cars for the purpose of replating them

with VIN numbers from salvage vehicles obtained at low prices.

Indeed, the lifeline of the conspiracy was the stolen vehicles. And, we

also reject Dizelos' contention that his possession of mere "parts"

from a stolen vehicle should be insufficient to hold him accountable

for the loss associated with the stolen vehicle itself. After all, Dizelos

was convicted of a conspiracy to use stolen and salvage vehicles to

operate a chop-shop and, given the other evidence presented, we can

hardly conceive of a more reasonable inference than that the stolen

car, to which the parts belonged, passed through Dizelos' chop-shop

on the way to a dealership.

Finally, we are likewise unconvinced that the district court committed clear error in attributing $125,000 in dealer losses to Dizelos,

which were associated with the second stage of Dizelos' conspiracy.

And, because the remaining losses would exceed $800,000 in any

event, the eleven-level enhancement was properly applied and

Dizelos is not entitled to a reduction in his total offense level. See

U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1.

 13
B.

Dizelos' final challenge is to the district court's imposition of a

four-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), for his participation as an "organizer or leader" of an"otherwise extensive"

criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We review the district court's

determination for clear error. See United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d

512, 518 (4th Cir. 1997).

Section 3B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a fourlevel enhancement, based upon a defendant's aggravating role in the

offense, "[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal

activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive." Dizelos, whom the trial court determined fit this description, challenges the enhancement because it was supported in part by

the testimony of a law enforcement officer who testified as to the

results of the interviews of two of Dizelos' coconspirators, both of

whom had entered into cooperation agreements with the Government.

We find no error in the district court's application of a four-level

enhancement for Dizelos' role in the offense. When making sentencing determinations, the district court may consider any reliable and

relevant information, including hearsay. See United States v. Jones,

31 F.3d 1304, 1316 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Bowman, 926

F.2d 380, 381 (4th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, the district court did not

rely solely upon the challenged statements. Rather, the court was also

presented with voluminous evidence which corroborated the statements and which more than supported a finding that Dizelos was a

leader and organizer of the criminal activity.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences

imposed upon Theodore Dizelos.

AFFIRMED

 14