
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie J. PERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 25, 2003.
    Barron M. Helgoe, Victor, Victor, & Helgoe, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Travis N. Gery, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jessie Perry pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Perry to fifty-seven months imprisonment. Perry now appeals, and we affirm.

Perry contends the district court erred at his sentencing hearing by admitting hearsay testimony concerning a statement made by his wife and co-conspirator, Mary Perry, to an FBI Special Agent. Perry claims the statement was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy and was therefore inadmissable hearsay. In making its factual determinations, a sentencing court may consider any reliable and relevant information, including hearsay. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1095 (4th Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Roberts, 881 F.2d 95, 106-07 (4th Cir.1989)). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3661; Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d). Consequently, we find Perry’s claim meritless.

Perry contends the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 3Bl.l(c) for his role in the offense. A district court’s determination of the defendant’s role in the offense is a factual finding that is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th Cir.1997).

Under USSG § 3Bl.l(c), a two-level enhancement is to be given if the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of any criminal activity that did not involve five or more participants and was not otherwise extensive. We find the district court did not clearly err in its determination.

Accordingly, we affirm Perry’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  