Patrick Alexander Jones appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). He contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the contraband was cocaine base (as opposed to some other variant of cocaine). However, Jones has not shown that the factual finding was plain error in light of the expert testimony offered at trial. See United States v. Dukes, 139 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir. 1998).

None of Jones’s arguments regarding sentencing merit relief. He has not shown that testimony of a witness who had entered into a plea bargain with the government was incredible or insubstantial on its face. See United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552 (5th Cir. 1994). Jones has not shown that the district court clearly erred by arrogating money found on him to his drug trade. See United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 403 (5th Cir. 1997). Finally, Jones has not shown that the district court’s determination that he was running a prostitution ring related to his drug trade was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329-30 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.