
    UNITED STATES of America v. Bernard JONES, Appellant.
    No. 04-2796.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Sept. 15, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 15, 2005.
    
      Timothy P. Polishan, Hoegen, Hoegen & Kelley, Wilkes-Barre, PA, for Appellant.
    Before SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Bernard Jones was convicted of distribution and possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, and of conspiring to do the same. On June 15, 2004, Jones was sentenced under the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines regime to 360 months’ imprisonment. The computation of the Guidelines range was based in part on the Government’s position that it was “readily provable” that Jones was involved in distributing between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, that he was the leader of a narcotics distribution organization, and that he possessed firearms in connection with the drug offenses. None of these determinations were ever put to the jury. In addition to challenging his sentence, Jones contends that the District Court erred in restricting the cross examination of Agent Scott Fraley, and that Jones is therefore entitled to a new trial.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231; this Court’s jurisdiction is under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We find no error on the cross examination issue and will uphold Jones’s conviction. We will vacate the sentence and remand the case for re-sentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 164-65 (3d Cir.2005) (en banc). 
      
      . Jones contends that the District Court abused its discretion by not allowing cross examination of Agent Fraley regarding accusations that he had "pusbfed] the limits of acceptable law enforcement practices” in other cases. Having reviewed the evidence of Fraley’s allegedly "unethical and improper investigatory tactics,” the sidebar colloquy, and the District Court’s ruling, we find Jones’s argument wholly without merit. The District Court was correct to prohibit inquiry into these irrelevant and distracting allegations.
     