*The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge

for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division.

___________

 No. 96-1477 

___________

United States of America *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Willie L. Garrett *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee *

___________

 Submitted: February 11, 1997

 Filed: March 28, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM

 Appellant Willie L. Garrett appeals his sentence following a jury

trial, asserting the District Court failed to comply with the requirements 1

of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). We affirm.
-2-

During a routine traffic stop in March 1994, police seized 14.39

grams of cocaine base from the passenger compartment of a car driven by

Garrett. A federal grand jury subsequently returned a four-count

superceding indictment against Garrett and his brother Tony who was

accompanying Garrett at the time of the stop. Garrett was ultimately found

guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution

of cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and aiding and

abetting the possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of

21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(B). 

Prior to his sentencing hearing, Garrett filed written objections to

the calculations in the pre-sentence investigation report (PSR) regarding

the quantities of cocaine and cocaine base attributable to him for

sentencing purposes. Specifically, Garrett objected to any amount of drugs

being attributed to him, other than the 14.93 grams seized in March 1994,

on grounds there was no evidence adduced at trial substantiating the

quantities set forth in the PSR. At the sentencing hearing, Garrett

renewed his objections. Based on the evidence seized from the

automobile and on information provided to the government by Ross Henry, the

original PSR attributed 152.60 grams (5.38 ounces) of cocaine base

(“crack”) to Garrett for purposes of sentencing. Garrett describes Henry

as an “unindicted co-conspirator” who testified for the government at

Garrett’s trial pursuant to a plea agreement in an unrelated case. At

Garrett’s trial, Henry indicated he had delivered cocaine and cocaine base

to both Garrett and his brother. At Garrett’s sentencing hearing, because

Garrett made objections to the quantities of cocaine base attributed to him

in the PSR, the government once again called Henry to testify. Henry

indicated that during his testimony at the trial, he was intimidated by a

man in the gallery wearing black gloves, but that he was now (at the

sentencing hearing) prepared to indicate for the Court, the full extent of

Willie 
-3-

Garrett’s involvement in the conspiracy. Henry testified that he and the

Garrett brothers had been involved in a cocaine distribution conspiracy.

He also testified that throughout the conspiracy, he had delivered small

amounts of cocaine and cocaine base to the Garrett brothers on several

occasions and that Willie Garrett had obtained approximately five and one

half ounces of cocaine base during the course of that conspiracy. At the

conclusion of the hearing the Court sentenced Garrett to two concurrent

terms of 360 months incarceration. 

On appeal, Garrett argues that upon his objection to the drug

quantity attributed to him in the PSR, the District Court failed to make

specific factual findings regarding the quantity of drugs the Court found

properly attributable to Garrett for sentencing purposes as required by

Rule 32(c)(1). We review the District Court’s determination of the amount

of drugs attributable to the defendant for clear error. United States v.

Flores, 73 F.3d 826, 833 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 2568 (1996). th

Under Rule 32(c)(1), when a party objects to matters contained in the

PSR, “the court must make either a finding on the allegation or a

determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter

will not be taken into account in, or will not affect, sentencing.” Fed.

R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). The government must prove at sentencing the type and

quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant by a preponderance of the

evidence. United States v. Randolph, 101 F.3d 607, 608 (8 Cir. 1996). If th

a defendant objects to the PSR’s drug quantity recommendation, the

sentencing court must make a specific finding “on the basis of evidence,

and not the pre-sentence report.” United States v. Greene, 41 F.3d 383,

386 (8 Cir. 1994). In this regard, the court may rely on evidence

th

presented at trial, United States v. Simpkins, 953 F.2d 443, 445 (8 Cir. th

1992), and the court may, in its discretion, permit the parties to

introduce testimony or other evidence on the objections at the sentencing
-4-

hearing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). The sentencing court may consider any

relevant information, provided the information has sufficient indicia of

reliability to support its probable accuracy. United States v. Fetlow, 21

F.3d 243, 248 (8 Cir. 1994). In determining whether the findings of the th

sentencing court are sufficient to satisfy Rule 32, we consider whether the

findings allow for meaningful appellate review. Id.; Randolph, 101 F.3d at

609. 

 We are satisfied the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing

had sufficient indicia of reliability inasmuch as Henry testified under

oath and was subjected to extensive cross-examination. Moreover, the

issues of Henry’s credibility and the weight of the evidence are issues for

the sentencing judge and are entitled to particularly great deference.

United States v. Funk, 985 F.2d 391, 394 (8 Cir. 1993). Although the

th

District Court did not make express findings relative to the amount of

drugs attributable to Garrett at the hearing, it is clear that it

implicitly credited Henry’s quantity testimony for sentencing purposes and

resolved the disputed issue against Garrett. See United States v. Dortch,

923 F.2d 629 (8 Cir. 1991); and United States v. Edwards, 994 F.2d 417

th

(8 Cir. 1993). Through the testimony of Henry, the government

th

established that Garrett obtained over five ounces of cocaine base from

Henry. The sentence imposed by the Court is consistent with that

testimony. 

We have carefully reviewed the record of the sentencing hearing and

conclude the District Court committed no clear error. Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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