Opinion ID: 712274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stacy Lanterman

Text: 10 Lanterman's principal argument is that the district court erred in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of Daniel Edge in determining the amount of cocaine that was foreseeable to the conspirators. This argument misplaces the burden of producing evidence at sentencing. Once a defendant has challenged the facts contained in a presentence report, assuming the facts bear sufficient indicia of reliability, the defendant must carry the burden of presenting some evidence beyond a mere denial calling the reliability or correctness of the alleged facts into question. United States v. Coonce, 961 F.2d 1268, 1280 (7th Cir.1992). 11 In this case, Lanterman did not testify at the sentencing hearing, nor did he present any evidence to substantiate his claim that he was merely an agent in a four ounce cocaine deal. Lanterman's presentence report clearly indicates that Edge visited him and invited him to participate in a one kilogram cocaine transaction. Moreover, Lanterman later called Edge to inform him that he had found other investors who wanted to participate. The district court found this information reliable, and consequently attributed the entire kilogram to Lanterman for the purpose of calculating his sentence. We see no reason to disturb that ruling.