Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Ray BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 04-50014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Ray BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Ray BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50014.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Danny Ray Bishop appeals the sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He argues that the district court clearly erred by considering empty pseudoephedrine packets in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Presentence Report ("PSR") relied on information that was derived from police reports and later corroborated by testimony at the sentencing hearing as to the quantity of empty packaging and as to the likelihood that the contents were used to manufacture methamphetamine. Because Bishop has not shown that the drug-quantity information in the PSR "is materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable," he has not shown that the district court clearly erred by adopting it. See United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir.1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.