UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                  No. 99-4044
JEFFERSON RIASCOS-VALENCIA, a/k/a
William Keith Patterson, a/k/a
Jason,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-97-40)

Submitted: February 29, 2000

Decided: April 10, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

W. Terry Sherrill, CREFT, SHERRILL & ASSOCIATES, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jefferson Riascos-Valencia was convicted pursuant to his guilty
pleas of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and
conspiracy to import cocaine. On appeal, he alleges that the district
court erred in its calculation of the amount of drugs attributable to
him and by denying his motion for a downward adjustment as a
minor/minimal participant.1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Riascos-Valencia was part of a major drug conspiracy that operated
primarily in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina, area from 1989-
1996. The record shows that most of the co-conspirators were from
the same neighborhood in Colombia. The conspirators imported the
cocaine from Columbia and Ecuador and distributed it in North Caro-
lina, Georgia, Texas, and New York. Riascos-Valencia was arrested
during a controlled purchase and was found to be in possession of
approximately 492 grams of crack cocaine.

We will uphold the district court's factual determination concern-
ing the amount of drugs attributable to Riascos-Valencia absent clear
error. See United States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir. 1996).
In addition, Riascos-Valencia bore the burden of showing that he was
entitled to a reduction in his base offense level, and the district court's
factual determination concerning his role in the offense will only be
reversed if it was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Campbell,
935 F.2d 39, 46 (4th Cir. 1991).

The investigating agent testified that, based on interviews with sev-
eral co-conspirators, Riascos-Valencia worked with Juan Alomia, the
head of the "cell" in Winston-Salem, in Ecuador setting up a trans-
_________________________________________________________________
1 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (1998).

                     2
shipment point to facilitate the smuggling of cocaine from Columbia
into the United States. After establishing the base in Ecuador,
Riascos-Valencia and Alomia entered this country illegally as stow-
aways aboard a merchant vessel in April 1996. Once in the United
States, Riascos-Valencia assisted Alomia in the delivery of cocaine
and crack cocaine, controlled the monetary aspects of Alomia's oper-
ation, cooked cocaine into crack, traveled to various ports to assist in
receiving the imported cocaine,2 and developed his own customer
base.

Riascos-Valencia's primary argument at sentencing (and now on
appeal) was that the statements of his co-conspirators were not credi-
ble or reliable. The district court resolved this issue against him, and
we find nothing in the record which would justify overturning the
court's factual findings. See United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604,
614 (4th Cir. 1994) (district court's credibility determinations are
entitled to great deference). As a result, we find that Riascos-Valencia
failed to meet his burden of showing that the information in the pre-
sentence report concerning the amount of drugs attributable to him
was inaccurate. See United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th
Cir. 1990). We further find that the evidence shows Riascos-Valencia
was at least as culpable as the other members of the conspiracy and
therefore was not entitled to a mitigating role adjustment under USSG
§ 3B1.2.

Accordingly, we affirm Riascos-Valencia's conviction and sen-
tence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
2 The district court attributed ten kilograms of cocaine to Riascos-
Valencia as a result of two of these trips. The agent's testimony sug-
gested that the total amount attributable to him was probably much
higher.




                     3
