IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-51073

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CECILIO SANDOVAL-GONZALEZ, also known as Cecilio Domicilio 

Sandoval-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-641-1

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Cecilio Sandoval-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the 

United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). His revised presentence 

report (PSR) declined to include a three-level decrease to the offense level for 

acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, finding that 

Sandoval-Gonzalez continued to participate in criminal behavior while 

 

* 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

August 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-51073 Document: 00514612801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2018
No. 17-51073

2

incarcerated. On appeal, Sandoval-Gonzalez raises four related arguments. 

First, he contends that the district court erred in determining that he was not 

entitled to a three-level decrease to the offense level for acceptance of 

responsibility. Second, he argues that the sentencing guideline calculation was 

“unreasonable” because it was based on “unreliable information” concerning 

Sandoval-Gonzalez’s continuing criminal activity. In issues three and four, he 

claims that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable 

because it was based on unreliable information. 

This court will affirm the district court’s decision not to grant a 

defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility unless that decision is 

“without foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant has 

the burden of proving entitlement to the reduction. United States v. Thomas, 

120 F.3d 564, 574-75 (5th Cir. 1997). “The district court may adopt the facts 

contained in a [PSR] without further inquiry if those facts have an adequate 

evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability and the defendant does 

not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the information 

in the PSR is unreliable.” United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir. 

2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant has the 

burden of presenting evidence to show that the facts in the PSR are “inaccurate 

or materially untrue.” United States v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 620-21 (5th 

Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, SandovalGonzalez did not offer any evidence in rebuttal to the PSR, but merely argued 

that the PSR depended on unreliable and uncreditable hearsay. Therefore, he

failed to meet his burdens to show that the PSR’s facts were “inaccurate or 

materially untrue” or that he was entitled to the reduction. See Cervantes, 706 

F.3d at 620-21; Thomas, 120 F.3d at 574-75.

 Case: 17-51073 Document: 00514612801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2018
No. 17-51073

3

Sandoval-Gonzalez did not challenge the reasonableness of his sentence 

in the district court. To show that the district court plainly erred by imposing 

a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence, Sandoval-Gonzalez 

must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial 

rights. See United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008). This 

court will correct such an error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Baker, 538 F.3d at 332. A 

discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range 

is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. 

Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the district court’s reliance 

on the PSR was not erroneous and its guidelines calculation was correct, 

Sandoval-Gonzalez has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness. See 

id.

Accordingly, Sandoval-Gonzalez’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-51073 Document: 00514612801 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2018