### *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 Willie L. Garrett * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee *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 jur y trial, asserting the District Court failed to comply with the requirements 1 of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). We affirm.

### -2- Du ring a routine traffic stop in March 1994, police seized 14.3 9 grams of cocaine base from the passenger compartment of a car driven by Garret t. A federal grand jury subsequently returned a four-coun t superc eding indictment against Garrett and his brother Tony who wa s accompanying Garrett at the time of the stop. Ga rrett was ultimately found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to d istribute and distribution of cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U .S.C. § 846 and aiding and abetting the possessi on 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, Gar rett filed written objections to the calculations in t he pre-sentence investigation report (PSR) regarding the quan tities of cocaine and cocaine base attributable to him fo r sentencing purposes. Specifically, Garrett objected to any amount of drug s being attributed to h im, other than the 14.93 grams seized in March 1994,
on g rounds there was no evidence adduced at trial substantiating th e quan tities set forth in the PSR. At the sentencing hearing, Garret t renewed his objections. Based on the evidence seized from the automobile and on information provided to the government by Ross Henry, th e origin al PSR attributed 152.60 grams (5.38 ounces) of cocaine bas e (“crack”) to Garrett for purposes of sentencing. Garrett describes Henry
as an “unindicted co-conspirator” who testified for the government a t Garrett’s trial pursuant to a plea agreement in an unrelated case. A t Garrett’s trial, Henry indicated he had delivere d cocaine and cocaine base to both Garrett and his brother. At Garrett’s s entencing hearing, because Garrett made objections to the quantities of cocaine base attributed to hi m in the PSR, the government once again called Henry to testify. Henr y indicated that duringhis testimony at the trial, he was intimidated by a
man in the gallery wearing black gloves, but that he was now (at th e 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
amoun ts of cocaine and cocaine base to the Garrett brothers on severa l occasions and that Wi llie Garrett had obtained approximately five and one half ounces of cocain e base during the course of that conspiracy. At the
con clusionof the hearing the Court sentenced Garrett to two concurren t terms of 360 months incarceration. On appeal, Garrett argues that upon his objection to the dru g quantityattributed to him in the PSR, the District Court failed to make specific factual find ings regarding the quantity of drugs the Court found proper lyattributable to Garrett for sentencing purposes as required b y Rule 32(c)(1). We review the District Court’s d etermination 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 becau se 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 an d quantityof drugs attributable to a defendant by a preponderance of th e evidence. United States v. Randolph , 101 F.3d 607, 60 8 (8 Cir. 1996) . If th
a defe ndant objects to the PSR’s drug quantity recommendation, th e 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 evidenc e

th presented at trial, UnitedStates v. Simpkins , 953 F.2d 443, 445 (8 Cir. th 199 2), and the court may, in its discretion, permit the parties t o introduce testimony o r other evidence on the objections at the sentencing

### -4-

hearing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). The sentenc ing court may consider any relevant information, provided the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to suppor t its probable accuracy. United States v. Fetlow , 21 F.3d 243, 248 (8 Cir. 1 994). In determining whether the findings of the th sentencing court are sufficient to satisfy Rule 32, we consider whether th e findings allow for meaningful appellate review. Id .; Randolph , 101 F.3d at 609.

We are satisfied the evidence presented at the sentencing hearin g had su fficient indicia of reliability inasmuch as Henry testified unde r oath a nd was subjected to extensive cross-examination. Moreover, th e issues of Henry’s credibility and the weight of the evidence are issues fo r the se ntencing judge and are entitled to particularly great deference
. Uni ted States v. Funk , 985 F.2d 391, 394 (8 Cir. 1993). Although th e th Distr ict Court did not make express findings relative to the amount o f drugs at tributable to Garrett at the hearing, it is clear that i t implicitly credited Henry’s quantity testimony f or sentencing purposes and resolved the disputedissue against Garrett. See United States v. Dortch , 92 3 F.2d 629 (8 Cir. 1991); and United States v. Edwards , 994 F.2d 41 7 th (8 Cir. 1993). Through the testimony of Henry, the governmen t th est ablished that Garrett obtained over five ounces of cocaine base fro m Henry. The sentence imposed by the Court is consistent with tha t testimony.

We have c arefully 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.