1The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3587

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Pedro Tistcareno-Rios, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 24, 1999

 Filed: March 29, 1999

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pedro Tistcareno-Rios pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. As relevant, TistcarenoRios objected to the presentence report’s drug quantity calculation. After a lengthy

evidentiary hearing, the district court1 overruled Tistcareno-Rios’s objection and

sentenced him to 144 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. On

appeal, Tistcareno-Rios argues that the district court’s finding that 977 grams of
-2-

methamphetamine actual was foreseeable to him as relevant conduct was clearly

erroneous because the evidence relied on was insufficient, speculative, and

unsupported.

We have carefully reviewed the hearing transcript and other evidence, and we

conclude that the record supports the court’s drug-quantity finding. See United States

v. Maggard, 156 F.3d 843, 847-48 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1094 (1999)

(government must prove by preponderance of evidence drug quantity attributable to

defendant); United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993) (this court

will not overturn district court’s drug-quantity determination unless it is clearly

erroneous). Tistcareno-Rios pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana from

January 1995 to April 1997. The district court had before it the testimony of coconspirator Karla Campos that Tistcareno-Rios asked her to mail a package containing

977 grams of methamphetamine actual to Omaha, Nebraska in March 1997, and Saul

Tistcareno-Rios’s (Saul) statement to police that the package was from Daniel Enciso,

an alias by which Tistcareno-Rios was known. The court also had before it TistcarenoRios’s statement to police that he had mailed marijuana to Saul from California on three

occasions, and evidence that other individuals had accepted packages which contained

controlled substances on Saul’s behalf. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.3(a)(1) & (2) (1998); United States v. Lawrence, 915 F.2d 402, 407-08 (8th Cir.

1990) (possession and distribution of cocaine that occurred during period of marijuana

distribution for which defendant had been found guilty was same course of conduct as

offense of conviction under relevant conduct Guideline). 

To the extent Tistcareno-Rios is arguing that Campos’s testimony is too

unreliable to support the drug-quantity finding because she gave conflicting accounts

of his involvement, the argument lacks merit as the district court was fully apprised of

Campos’s prior statements to police in which she did not implicate Tistcareno-Rios and

of the possible motivations for her testimony (e.g., sentencing considerations in her own

case) and despite this, the court when making its finding chose to credit the testimony
-3-

of Campos. See Adipietro, 983 F.2d at 1472 (district court&s findings as to credibility

of witness in making drug-quantity determination are virtually unreviewable on appeal);

cf. United States v. Candie, 974 F.2d 61, 65 (8th Cir.1992) (like any other fact finder

who assesses witness credibility, sentencing judge is free to believe all, some, or none

of witness&s testimony). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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