Court Opinion

ID: 9890259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 18:00:45.241454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:13.260403
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50753        Document: 00516928840             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                         October 12, 2023
                                       No. 22-50753
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________
                                                                                Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Victor Raul Lozano, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-66-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Victor Raul Lozano, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition by
   a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and
   was sentenced to a within-guidelines sentence of 46 months of imprisonment.
   On appeal, Lozano argues that the district court erred by applying an
   enhanced offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) upon the finding
   that he constructively possessed a large-capacity handgun.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50753      Document: 00516928840           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                     No. 22-50753

          We review a district court’s interpretation or application of the
   Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United
   States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). Clear error review
   is “deferential,” and a factual finding needs “only . . . to be plausible in light
   of the record as a whole” to be upheld. United States v. Abrego, 997 F.3d 309,
   312 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The Government has the burden to demonstrate, “by a
   preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary to support an elevated
   base offense level.” United States v. Luna-Gonzalez, 34 F.4th 479, 480 (5th
   Cir. 2022). In general, a presentence report (PSR) “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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, a district
   court may adopt, without further inquiry, the facts contained in a PSR to
   support an offense level enhancement. United States v. Rome, 207 F.3d 251,
   254 (5th Cir. 2000). If the defendant challenges the facts presented in the
   PSR, he has the burden of showing that they are “materially untrue,
   inaccurate or unreliable.” Abrego, 997 F.3d at 312 (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). Such challenges substantiated only by “unsworn
   assertions . . . are unreliable and should not be considered.” United States v.
   Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028, 1030 (5th Cir. 1992).
          Based on the facts presented in the PSR, there was “at least a plausible
   inference that [Lozano] had knowledge of and access to” the large-capacity
   handgun at issue, as was the required showing here for constructive
   possession. United States v. Hinojosa, 349 F.3d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 2003)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v.
   Prudhome, 13 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1994) (reviewing a challenge to the
   sufficiency of the evidence and stating that the evidence supported an
   inference of constructive possession of the firearm in the vehicle because the

                                               2
Case: 22-50753     Document: 00516928840          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                   No. 22-50753

   defendant “was driving, the gun was located directly under his seat, and he
   had three rounds of matching ammunition in his waist pouch”). Lozano’s
   unsworn assertions to the contrary were not sufficient to rebut the reliable
   evidence presented in the PSR which supported the district court’s factual
   findings. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d at 1030.
         AFFIRMED.

                                            3