Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and 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

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10292 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. J A IM E VA Z Q U E Z , a ls o k n o w n a s J im m yV a z q u e z , 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 N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R
- 167- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jaim e V azqu ez pl ead ed gu i l t y t o conspi racy t odi st ribu t e 50 gram s orm ore of a s ubst ance co n t ai ni ng m et ham phet am i ne and r ec eived a s ent enc e o f 360 m on t h s i n pri son. O n app eal , he cha l l en ges t h e val i di t y of hi s s e n te n ce. Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 43 U . S . 2 20 ( 200 5) , sentences are revi ew ed forre a so n a b len e ss inli g h t of th e se n te n cin gfac to rs in1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F . 3d5 11, 5 19-20 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) . Pu rsuan tt o G a ll v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 3 8, 51 ( 200 7) , w e deter m i n e w h et h er t h e sentence United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 29, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10292 Document: 00511064596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2010N o. 09- 10292

2 i mp o s e di s p r o c e d u r a l lys o u n da n dwh e t h e ri ti s s u b s t a n t iv e l yr e a s o n a b l e . O n ap pea l , V azqu ez ch al l en ges on l y t h e procedu ralreasonab l en ess of hi s s en t en ce, assert i n g t h at th e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n cal cul ati n g t h e app l i cabl e gu i del i n es r a n g e . S ee G a ll , 552 U . S. at51. V azqu ez argues that t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n h ol di n g h i m respon sibl e f or 5 8 . 6 3 k i l og ra m s of m eth a m p h eta m i n e. H e con ten d s th a t beca u se h e ob j ected to t h e drugqu an t i t y, t h e di st ri ctcourtw as not entit l ed t o rely on t h e i n f orm ati on i n cl u d ed i n the pr ese n ten ce re p ort (P S R ) a n dthe G ov ern m en t ha da d u ty to p r o v e b yap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h e d r u gq u a n t i t ya t t r ib u t a b l e t o h i m. T h e di st ri ctcourtm ay rel y on t h e i n f orm ati on i n a P S R in t h e absen ce of r e b u tt a l e v id e n c e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. O l l i son , 5 5 5 F .3d 1 5 2 , 1 6 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “M ere obj ection s d o n ot su ff i ce a s com p eten t rebu ttalev i d en ce.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Parker , 1 33 F. 3d3 22 , 3 29 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 98 ) . Vaz que z a l s o a s s e r t s t hatt he PSR l a ck s su ff

i ci en t i n d i ci a of reli a b i l i ty b eca u se his cod efen d a n ts w ere m otiva tedto overi n f l ate th e am ou n tof

m et h am ph et am i n e a t t ribu t able t o hi m out of j eal ou sy or i n an att em pt t o i n grati ate th em selves w i t h l aw enfor cem en t . Ad i st ri ctcourt m ay consi der u n corr oborated h earsay evi den ce d u ri n g sentenci n g proceedi n gs. Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

est , 5 8 F .3 d1 3 3 , 1 3 8 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). In lig h to f V a z q u e z ’s ad m i s s i o n t hathe pr o vi de d m et ham phe t am i ne t o o t he rc o ns pi r at o r s , t he ge ne r all y c o ns i s t e nt s t at e m e nt s by c o ns pi r at o r s a bo utt he q uant i t i e s r e c e ive d, a n dth e e v id e n c e o f d r u gm a n u fa c t u r in ga n dm o n e yc o u n t in gfo u n di n V a z q u e z ’s ho m e , he ha s notes t ab l i s he d t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc l e ar l y e r r e d i n a c c e pt i ng t he in fo r m a tio n in th e P S R r e g a r d in gth e p e r tin e n t d r u gq u a n tit y . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Posad a-R i os , 1 5 8 F .3 d8 3 2 , 8 7 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); W est , 58 F. 3d at138. D efen da n tcontends t h at the di st ri ctcou rterred i n den yi n g h i m a t h reel eve lr educ t i on f

or ac c ept ance of r es ponsibi l i t y und er U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1( a) and (b) i n l i ghto f

hi s t i m e l y guil t y pl e a. Vaz que z b e ar s t he b ur de n o f de m o ns t r at i ng th a t t h e re d u c tio n w a s w a r r a n te d . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Fl uc as , 99 F. 3d 177, 180 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). C o n d u c t c o n s tit u tin ga n o b s tr u c tio n o f ju s tic e g e n e r a lly Case: 09-10292 Document: 00511064596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2010N o. 09- 10292

3 p re clu d e s an a cc e p ta n ce o f re sp o n sib il ity re d u ctio n . § 3 E 1 .1, co m m e n t . (n .4). V azqu ez di d n otdi spu t e t h e condu ctl ead in gt o t h e obst ructi on - of

-j u st i ce e nhan c e m e ntund e rU . S. S. G . § 3 C1. 1. Addit i o nall y, ac o ur tc o ns i de r i ng t he r e duc t i o n m us tde t e r m i ne w he t he r t he de fe nda nt “ t r ut hf ul l y ad m i t t [ e d] o r[ di d] n o t fa ls e lyd e n y [] a n ya d d itio n a llyre le v a n t c o n d u c t fo rw h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t is a cc o u n tab l e. ” § 3E 1. 1, com m en t . (n . 1(A) ) . V azqu ez’ s obj ect i on s c on st i t u t ed at t e m pt s t o d e ny o rm i ni m i z e r e l e va ntc o nduc t , w hi c h t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t o be m eri t l ess. V azqu ez ha s not est abli shed t h at th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on w a s w ith o u t fo u n d a tio n . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. Ju a re z-D u a rte , 513 F. 3d 204, 211 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). A l so defen da n tcon t en ds t h at the di st ri ctcourterr ed byi m posi n g a f ou rl e ve len h an cem e nta f t e rf i ndi ng t hathe w as a n o r ga ni z e ro rl e ad e ro f t he c o ns pi r ac y. H e m ai nt ai ns t hatbe c aus e he obj e c t e d t o t he f i ndi ng i n t he PSR, t he di st ri ctc o ur tc o ul d no tr e l y upo n t he i nf o r m at i o n i nc l ude d t he r e i n a nd the G ove r nm entw as r equi r ed t o pr es entevi d en ce suppor t i ng t he PS R f i ndi ng. V azqu ez bore t h e b u rd e n o f provi n g t h e P S R w as i n accurate, an d h i s bare o bje c tio n d idn o t r e b u t t h a t in fo r m a tio n . S ee O l l i son , 5 5 5 F .3 da t 1 6 4 ; Parker , 1 3 3 F .3 da t 3 2 9 . H e th u s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r lye r r e din im p o s in gth e e n h a n c e m e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R ose , 44 9 F . 3 d62 7 , 63 3 ( 5 th Cir . 2 0 0 6 ) . 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 t h u s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-10292 Document: 00511064596 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2010