Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50977 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. M ARCEL I NO DOM I NGU EZ

- LUNA , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R

- 81- 2
B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M a r c e l i n o Do mi n g u e z - L u n a (Do mi n g u e z ) wa s c o n v i c t e db yaj u r yo f t wo c o u n t s o f

t r a n s p o r t i n gi l l e g a la l i e n s f o rf i n a n c i a lg a i n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S
. C. § 1 324( a) ( 1) (A) (i i) and (v)( II )
. The di st r i c tc our ts ent enc ed D om i nguez t o 4 5 m ont hs o f

i m pri so nm enton e ac h co unt of c on victi on , t o r un co ncur r ent l y, f o l l o w e d b y a t hr e e - year t erm of s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e o n e ac h c o unt , a l s o t o r un concu rrently. D om i n gu ez now app eal s hi s s en t en ce, argu i n g t h a t t h e court vi ol ated his du e pr o ce ss ri gh t s by relyi n g on an accom pl i ce’ s un corr oborated United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust24, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50977

2 h earsay st atem en t s i n t h e presentence report( P S R ) t o i n crease t h e nu m ber of al i e ns t hathe w as a c c o unt ab l e f o rt r ans po r t i ng, a nd t hatt hi s r e s ul t e d i n a h i gh er of

fen se l evelan d sen t en ce. T h e use of

hea rs aya tsentenci n g does n otvi ol ate a defen da n t ’ s du e process r i ght s s o l o ng as t he i nf o r m at i o n has “ s o m e m i ni m al i ndi c i um o f r e l i ab i l i t y” a nd

“bear [ s] s om e r at i onalr el at i ons hi p t o t he dec i si on t o i m pos e apar t i c ul ar sen ten ce.” Uni t e d St at e s v . You ng , 981 F. 2d 180, 187- 88 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) (i nt er nal q u o ta tio n a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d ). M o r e o v e r , “ [a ]s a g e n e r a l ru le , in fo r m a tio n in t he [ PSR ] i s pr e s um e d r e l i ab l e a nd m ay be ad o pt e d b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw i t ho ut f urt heri nqui r y i f

t he def

endantfai l s t o de m ons t r at e b y c om pet entr ebut t al e v id e n c e th a t t h e in fo r m a tio n is m a te r ia llyu n tr u e , in a c c u r a t e o ru n r e lia b le .” Uni t e d St at e s v . Car ba j al , 290 F
. 3d 277 , 287 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d ). A t sentenci n g, t h e di st ri ct court f ou n d t h at t h e t est i m on yof a w itness s u f f i c i e n t l yc o r r o b o r a t e dt h e h e a r s a ys t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n e di n t h e P S R. D o m i ngu e z t he n fai l e d t o s ho w by c o m pe t e nt r e but t al e vi de nc e t hat t he statem en ts w ere “m a terial l y u n tru e, i n a ccu ra te or u n reli a b l e.” Id
. W e t hus f i nd n o err or in co n n ection w i th the distri ct co u rt’ s d ecisi on to rel y o n the statem en ts ats ent enc i ng. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.