               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 00-40402
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

GERARDO DAVID MARTINEZ,

                                             Defendant-Appellant,
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. L-99-CR-932-1
_________________________________________________________________
                         December 14, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Gerardo David Martinez challenges the sentence he received

following his guilty plea conviction for possession with the intent

to distribute 43 pounds of cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).    He argues that the district court

erred in determining that he had not given truthful information to

the government and thus in denying him a two-level reduction under




     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the “safety-valve” provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f).

     The record establishes that Martinez gave conflicting accounts

regarding how he came to meet the person from whom he allegedly

received the cocaine and where he picked up the car loaded with

cocaine.     This alone was a sufficient ground for denying the

safety-valve reduction.    See § 5C1.2(5); United States v. Edwards,

65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995).      Moreover, the district court’s

independent determination that Martinez’s story was implausible and

therefore not truthful is supported by the record and is thus not

clearly erroneous.    See United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145

(5th Cir. 1996).     Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

                                                     A F F I R M E D.




                                   2
