Three months ago I was moving from Miami Florida for a job transfer.I call many companies trying to get the best rate.I finally found Atlas Car Transport from Bellaire TX and they beat the price by $75.I explained to them that it was important to have the car in California in 4 weeks.The agent told me no problem.This made me feel relieved because nowadays saving $75 was a lot of money.

After not hearing from them for 3 weeks I started getting a little nervous because I knew it was going to take longer than a week to get there.I call the agent over 7 times in a 3 day period.Finally I called and get in touch with a guy named Wolfgang Erbstoesser.When I spoke to him he told me I had to pay an additional $225!I told him why didn't he call me ahead of time and moreover, why did he charge my Visa for $210 already?

I indicated to him that I wanted to cancel so I could hurry up and try to figure something else out.I asked him to refund my moneyAt that point he stated to me "F@CK YOU PUNK!" and hung up the phone.I am a corporate Executive of a Fortune 500 company.I couldn't believe what I just heard.I've never had a vendor speak to me this way.

I returned a call to Atlas Car Transport which Mr. Wolfgang Erbstoesser answered and repeated his pleasantries to me again. I asked him if he was the owner or manager which he replied, "No".
After reaching the manager "Nicholas", he stated that he would immediately fire Mr. Wolfgang Erbstoesser and then he began screaming at Mr. Wolfgang Erbstoesser in the background in which both parties erupted in laughter, again, slamming the phone down.

After futher investation I had my corporate attorney look into this.Mr Erbstoesser does own the company.In addition I have my attorney call the Federal Courthouse In Houston.I found out what make all the sence in the world.

This is a reminder to prospect clients.Judge for yourself!

Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50065 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WOLFGANG ERBSTOESSER, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (98-CR-141-1) October 5, 1999 Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Wolfgang Erbstoesser appeals from his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute MDMA and cocaine, possession with intent to distribute MDMA, and importation of MDMA. He first argues that the district court clearly erred by at tributing one pound of crystal methamphetamine to him as relevant conduct, contending that evidence of the m methamphetamine sale was insufficiently reliable and that the sale of methamphetamine did not qualify as relevant conduct. He also asserts that the district court clearly erred by applying a two-level leadership adjustment to his sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). Factual findings made by a sentencing court must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and are upheld unless clearly erroneous. U n ited States v. McCaskey , , 372 (5th Cir. 1993). The sentencing court's interpretations of the guidelines are reviewed de novo . Id. Evidence of Erbstoesser's methamphetamine sale was obtained from interviews condu cted by DEA agents and was corroborated by Erbstoesser's own statements to the DEA agents. The evidence was therefore sufficiently reliable for sentencing purposes. S ee United States v. Shacklett , , 584-85 (5th Cir. 1991). Although Erbstoesser argued against the inclusion of the methamphetamine sale as relevant conduct and the imposition of the leadership adjustment at sentencing, he failed to present any rebuttal evidence as to either issue. Erbstoesser has therefore failed to show that the district court clearly erred by adopting the PSR's factual findings regarding these issues. S ee United States v. Rogers , , 345 (5t h Cir. 1993)(no clear error shown when defendant failed to present evidence to rebut PSR's finding regarding releva nt conduct). As we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court, we need not consider Erbstoesser's request for a remand for the sentencing court to apply the safety valve provision. AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT