IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40479

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO CHAVEZ-SUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1622-5

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alberto Chavez-Suarez pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one 

count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more 

of marijuana. The district court sentenced Chavez-Suarez to 60 months of 

imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. Chavez-Suarez

argues that the district court committed reversible error when it found that he 

was “Ramon Carrillo Franco,” the individual convicted of the 2007 California 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40479 Document: 00513436127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2016
No. 15-40479

2

offenses listed in the presentence report. He contends that the information 

contained in the report was nonspecific and unreliable. Chavez-Suarez asserts 

this error was not harmless because it rendered him ineligible for the safety 

valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The Government has filed a motion 

to supplement the record on appeal with documents related to the 2007 

California convictions.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines 

de novo, and we review factual findings for clear error. United States v. 

Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 202–03 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). Facts used to 

determine a sentence must be supported “by a preponderance of the relevant 

and sufficiently reliable evidence.” United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 

(5th Cir. 2013). As long as a factual finding is plausible in light of the record 

as a whole, it is not clearly erroneous and should be upheld. Id. at 618.

A presentence report typically “bears sufficient indicia of reliability to be 

considered as evidence by the sentencing judge in making factual 

determinations.” United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Mere objections to the facts in the presentence report do not qualify as 

competent rebuttal evidence. Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 619. The defendant has the 

burden of presenting evidence to show that the facts in the report are 

inaccurate or materially untrue. United States v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 

620–21 (5th Cir. 2013).

Chavez-Suarez has not established that the district court committed 

clear error when it found that Chavez-Suarez was the individual convicted of

the California offenses. See Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 202-03 & n.9. ChavezSuarez’s admitted use of the alias “Ramon Carrillo Franco,” his concession to 

living in Redwood City, and the listing of that alias in the state case establish 

by a preponderance of the evidence that Chavez-Suarez committed the 

 Case: 15-40479 Document: 00513436127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2016
No. 15-40479

3

offenses. See Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 619. In addition, the probation officer 

explained that a search of the National and California Crime Information 

Center revealed that the Franco alias had been used by Chavez-Suarez. 

Moreover, the felony complaint and abstract of judgment relied upon by the 

probation officer have been deemed by us as reliable sources for proving the 

fact of a prior conviction. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 

794–96 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Moreno-Florean, 542 F.3d 445, 449 n.1 

(5th Cir. 2008).

Moreover, Chavez-Suarez failed to provide any rebuttal evidence to the 

information presented in the presentence report. Outside of mere objections 

to the reliability, accuracy, and prejudicial nature of the information, he did 

not submit any evidence to contradict the findings of the probation officer. 

These objections alone were insufficient to rebut the information and, thus, the 

district court was free to rely on the presentence report and its factual findings 

therein. See Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 619.

In light of the foregoing discussion, the motion to supplement the record 

on appeal is DENIED, as the records are irrelevant to the issue on appeal.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40479 Document: 00513436127 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2016