Danny Ray Bishop appeals the sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He argues that the district court clearly erred by considering empty pseudoephedrine packets in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Presentence Report (“PSR”) relied on information that was *218 derived from police reports and later corroborated by testimony at the sentencing hearing as to the quantity of empty packaging and as to the likelihood that the contents were used to manufacture methamphetamine. Because Bishop has not shown that the drug-quantity information in the PSR “is materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable,” he has not shown that the district court clearly erred by adopting it. See United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.