The Ho norable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Wester n 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2736

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Johnny W. Bryant, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 26, 1997 Filed: January 6, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Johnny W. Bryant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribut e methamphetam

ine and to possess it with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 846 (1 994). The District Court sentenced him to 100 1 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In doing so, the Court determin ed that an August 15, 1996 drug transaction involving sixteen ounces o f methamphet amine was reasonably foreseeable to Bryant, and that he was not entitled-2-

to a downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (1995) (di strict court may depart where criminal history does not adequately reflec t seriousn ess of defendant & s past conduct or likelihood defendant will commit othe r crimes). On appeal, Bryant challenges both of these determinations. We affirm.

In calculati ng the sentence for a defendant convicted of a drug conspiracy, the District Court may impute to the defendant the drugs attributable to his co-conspirators, if the co-conspirat ors & activities were in furtherance of the conspiracy and were either known to the defendant or reasonably foreseeable to him. See U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & § 1B1.3, comment. (n .2) (1995); United States
v. Weekly , 118 F.3d 576, 578 (8th Cir.) (relevant to reasonable-foreseeabilit y determination is whether defendant demonstrated substantial level of commitment to consp iracy), dissent modified , 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , No. 97-6575 , 1997 WL 696889 (U.S. Dec. 8, 1997).

T h e evidence at sentencing revealed the following facts. When an undercover detective advised Bryant on August 12, 1996, that he wanted to discuss purchasin g sixteen ounces of methamphetamine, Bryant indicated that sixteen ounces would not be a problem and that he would discuss the purchase price with Ralph Robbins, his coconspirator. During a drug transaction later that day, Bryant and Robbins again told the d etective that they could provide him with the sixteen ounces. In attempting t o arrang e the sixteen-ounce purchase, the detective spoke on the phone on August 1 3 with Bryant, who indicated he wanted to complete the deal at his pl ace of business, and he and Robbins had the sixteen ounces. When the detective declined to make th e purchase at the business, Bryant offered to meet the detective at his motel room t o complet e the deal. While Bryant did not physically participate in the August 15 sale, Ro bbins yelled for Bryant when the detective entered the business, the deal occurred in Bryant & s bedroom (located within the business premises ), and Bryant was present on the premises. Based on these facts, we cannot say the District Court clearly erred in attributing to Bryant the sixteen ounces of methamphetamine, as the August 15-3-

tr ansaction was reasonably foreseeable to him and was within the scope of th e conspiracy. See United States v. M axwell , 25 F.3d 1389, 1397 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1031 (1994).

We also conclude that the District Court & s decision not to depart downwar d under section 4A1.3 is unrev iewable, as the Court was aware of its authority to do so. See United States v. Hall , 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
A true copy.

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