United States v. Nelson

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 4, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41245
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODRICK LANIER NELSON,
also known as Big Dummy,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CR-32-4
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodrick Lanier Nelson appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute
cocaine base. Specifically, Nelson challenges the district
court’s two-level increase to his offense level for possession of
a dangerous weapon during a drug offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(1). Nelson also contends that the district court erred in
attributing to him as relevant conduct the quantities of crack
cocaine from two prior drug transactions. We have determined that

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-41245
-2-
Nelson’s notice of appeal was timely for purposes of vesting this
court with jurisdiction to consider this appeal. United States v.
Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 68 (5th Cir. 1995).
Nelson’s challenge to the U.S.S.G § 2D1.1(b)(1) two-level
enhancement consists of an attack on the credibility of a witness.
Because this court will not casually disturb credibility
determinations on appeal, we hold that the district court did not
clearly err in assessing the firearms enhancement. See United
States v. Powers, 168 F.2d 741, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1192-93 (5th Cir. 1997).
Similarly, because Nelson does not establish that the information
in the Presentence Report concerning the additional drug deals was
“materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable,” he fails to
demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in determining
that these other incidents constituted relevant conduct. United
States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991); United States
v. Vine, 62 F.3d 107, 109 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --