Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PENA-TRUJILLO, a.k.a. Jose Pena, a.k.a. Jose Pena Portillo, a.k.a. Jose Pena Trujillo Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 690 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 15-50449
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PENA-TRUJILLO, a.k.a. Jose Pena, a.k.a. Jose Pena Portillo, a.k.a. Jose Pena Trujillo Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PENA-TRUJILLO, a.k.a. Jose Pena, a.k.a. Jose Pena Portillo, a.k.a. Jose Pena Trujillo Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50449
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2017
Filed May 11, 2017
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Sandy N. Leal, United States Attorney’s Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Andrea Renee St. Julian, Esquire, Attorney, Andrea St. Julian, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Pena-Trujillo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pena-Trujillo contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve a dispute regarding whether he was on parole when he committed the instant offense and was thus subject to two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). We review de novo the district court's compliance with Rule 32. See United States v. Carter, 219 F.3d 863, 866 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court expressly determined that Pena-Trujillo had been on parole when he unlawfully reentered. Accordingly, the district court satisfied the requirements of Rule 32. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). Moreover, the district court properly relied on the presentence report in making its determination. See United States v. Marin-Cuevas, 147 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court may accept the presentence report as reliable evidence where the probation officer who prepared the report obtained the information from "a reliable source . had no reason to prevaricate").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- . cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.