Opinion ID: 13252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Lawson’s contention that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that he played a supervisory role in procuring others to transport cocaine for him, thus warranting a two-level increase in the guideline offense level, is totally devoid of merit. Jones and Stansberry testified that Lawson paid them to transport cocaine on his behalf. The women, on numerous occasions, took Lawson’s money to Houston, made a prearranged payment and pick up of cocaine, and returned the contraband to Lawson in Baton Rouge, where they received payment for their courier services. The district court heard this testimony and obviously found the 1 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 843(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 3 women credible. Its finding that Lawson was a supervisor as envisioned by the sentencing guidelines is well founded and, patently, is not clearly erroneous. 2 Lawson maintains that in sentencing the district court erroneously relied on the presentence report to determine the quantity of cocaine that he possessed. Lawson objects to the conclusion reached in the report regarding the quantity of cocaine because it ostensibly was based solely on the statements of Jones and Stansberry. We otherwise view the record. The district court had more than sufficient proof to find that Lawson distributed in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. Jones and Stansberry delivered 2.79 kilograms of the drug to him on the day he was arrested. This, coupled with their testimony that they delivered cocaine to him in kilo quantities on multiple occasions, provided abundant evidence for the determination that Lawson was involved in the distribution of over five kilograms of cocaine. The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED. 2 United States v. Barreto, 871 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1989) 4