Opinion ID: 533564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 21 Gerante contends that insufficient evidence exists to support the district court's implicit conclusion that the $68,000 originated from a prior drug transaction. He further argues that even if the evidence sufficiently supports such a conclusion, the evidence does not support the district court's finding that the drugs purchased with that money were part of the same course of conduct as the instant offense. See Guideline § 1B1.3. 22 We review the district court's findings of fact, as well as its application of § 1B1.3 to these facts, under a clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 443 (1st Cir.1988) (reviewing district court's role in the offense determination under Guideline § 3B1.2). Under this standard, we find the district court's conclusion regarding the origin of the $68,000 to be supported by sufficient indicia of reliability. See Guideline § 6A1.3(a) (requiring only sufficient indicia of reliability to support the probable accuracy of a given fact). Moreover, we hold that the district court did not commit clear error when it concluded that the drugs purchased with the $68,000 were part of the same course of conduct as the offense of conviction. Cf. United States v. Sarasti, 869 F.2d 805, 807 (5th Cir.1989) (upholding district court's determination that defendant's relevant conduct included cocaine that was in route to but never reached defendant).