
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denise Michelle CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-11067.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 16, 2004.
    Vicki H. Lamberson, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas Dale Farris, Peterson Farris Moss Pruitt & Parker, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Denise Michelle Contreras appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Contreras argues the district court erred by enhancing her offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b) based on a finding that she was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving five or more participants. Reliable information contained in the PSR and introduced at sentencing showed that Contreras supplied cellular telephones to other members of the operation, she equipped others with materials necessary to the furtherance of the drug operation, she directed others to complete financial transactions for the drug operation, she set prices and controlled the delivery of the methamphetamine, and she paid her brother a flat fee for drug deliveries that he made while she herself was paid in pounds of methamphetamine.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Contreras had a supervisory or managerial role in the drug operation. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (n.4); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Manthei, 913 F.2d 1130, 1135 (5th Cir.1990). Nor did the district court 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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     