United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1841

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Jeffrey Robert Behle, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2004

Filed: November 22, 2004

___________

Before SMITH, LAY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Jeffrey Robert Behle (Behle) pled guilty to one count of conspiracy

to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1) and 846.

According to a negotiated plea agreement, the quantity of drugs was determined by

the district court at sentencing. Based on the testimony of a cooperating witness,

Karen Cash (Cash), the district court found that the quantity of drugs exceeded 500

grams and sentenced Behle to the applicable statutory minimum of 120 months and

a five-year term of supervised release. Behle now appeals his sentence. We affirm.
-2-

In the plea agreement, Behle admitted to a quantity of at least fifty grams but

less than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture. The pre-sentencing report

determined that the quantity attributable to Behle was 890.9 grams. Behle objected

to the additional quantity beyond 500 grams. At the sentencing hearing, Cash

testified that, as part of the conspiracy, Behle retrieved and held approximately two

pounds of methamphetamine for her after she was arrested and then subsequently

returned one pound to her. Behle insists that he was only in possession of one pound

of methamphetamine. Behle further argues that Cash lacks credibility because of her

multiple criminal convictions, her motivation to testify in return for a reduced

sentence, and because she was previously found not credible in an unrelated criminal

proceeding. Additionally, Behle argues that Cash’s story is inconsistent with her

testimony before the grand jury. 

On appeal, a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is a

question of law subject to de novo review, while its factual determinations are subject

to review only for clear error. United States v. Euans, 285 F.3d 656, 661 (8th Cir.

2002). A district court’s determination as to the credibility of a witness is virtually

unreviewable on appeal. United States v. Martin, 28 F.3d 742, 745-46 (8th Cir. 1994)

(citation omitted). The amount of weight the district court decides to place on a

witnesses’ testimony can almost never be clear error unless there is extrinsic evidence

that contradicts the witnesses’ story or the story is so internally inconsistent or

implausible on its face that no reasonable fact-finder would credit it. United States

v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer

City, 470 U.S. 564, 575-76 (1985)).

At sentencing, the district court was aware of Cash’s previous criminal

convictions, that she had been found not credible in other criminal proceedings, and

the content of Cash’s testimony before the grand jury. The district court allowed

Behle to call Cash’s cousin, who testified as to Cash’s reputation for dishonesty.

After hearing the witnesses and considering all of the evidence, the district court
-3-

ultimately determined that Cash’s testimony was sufficiently credible to attribute the

additional quantity of methamphetamine to Behle. Applying the deferential standard

of review to the district court’s determination of witness credibility, we cannot

conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous.

The district court is AFFIRMED. 

______________________________