David Daniel Salazar (“Salazar”) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 pounds of marijuana and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute over 100 pounds of marijuana. Salazar argues that he should not have been attributed with 610 pounds of marijuana at sentencing because the district court clearly erred by finding that he was reasonably capable of purchasing or brokering the purchase of that amount of marijuana.
Given the evidence at sentencing regarding the purchase of marijuana made by Salazar’s co-conspirator, the statements made by Salazar to the undercover agent of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the cash found in the motels rooms of Salazar and his co-conspirator after they were arrested, the district court’s finding that Salazar was reasonably capable of purchasing or brokering the purchase of 610 pounds of marijuana was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir.1993). In rejecting Salazar’s statements that he was not capable of purchasing or brokering the purchase of 610 pounds of marijuana, the district court made a credibility determination that is “peculiarly within the province of the trier-of-fact” that we will not disturb on appeal. United States v. Sarasti 869 F.2d 805, 807 (5th Cir.1989). Accordingly, Salazar’s sentence is AFFIRMED.