United States v. Noe

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
March 27, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10912
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROLAND DALE NOE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-16-1-A
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roland Dale Noe appeals the 235-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) & (b).
The district court did not err in applying the
preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to a disputed sentencing
issue. See United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1240 (5th
Cir. 1994). Noe did not meet his burden of showing that the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-10912
-2-
information in the presentence report concerning relevant conduct
was unreliable. See United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205
(5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in determining
that methamphetamine sold by Noe in 1995-96 was relevant conduct
for sentencing purposes because the record supports a
determination that those sales were part of the same course of
conduct as the offense of conviction. See United States v.
Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 588-89 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, the
district court’s decision that Noe was not entitled to an
offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not
without foundation. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420,
458 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Chapa-Garza, 62 F.3d 118,
123 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --