
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carol Denise RICHARDSON; Eskico Truman Garner, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 06-20569
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 7, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    John Riley Friesell, Bellaire, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, DefendanL-Appellant Carol Denise Richardson was found guilty of one count of conspiring to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute and two counts of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced her to serve life in prison. Eskico Truman Garner was found guilty of one count of conspiring to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute and five counts of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to serve 405 months in prison. Richardson and Garner both appeal them sentences. Richardson argues that her life sentence is improper because it was based on facts concerning her prior convictions that were neither admitted by her nor found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed. See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 565, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Garner argues that the district court erred by determining that he was a leader of the offense and by sentencing him in accordance with this finding. The record shows, inter alia, that Garner conducted drug transactions, manufactured crack cocaine, and directed the actions of other individuals who were involved with the offense. The record also shows that at least five people were involved with the offense. In light of these facts, the district court’s determination that Garner was a leader of the offense is plausible. The district court’s imposition of the disputed adjustment thus is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230, 238 (5th Cir.2001). Garner’s challenge to the presumption of reasonableness afforded to a sentence that falls within the pertinent guidelines range is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, -U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Richardson and Garner have shown no error. Consequently, the judgments of the district court are

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cut. 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.
     