eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2000-06

United States v. Longoria ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20600
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARD LONGORIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-389-6
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leonard Longoria appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to transport and harbor undocumented aliens.   We
review the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines de novo, and we review the court’s factual findings
for clear error.    United States v. Edwards,
    65 F.3d 430
    , 432 (5th
Cir. 1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-20600
-2-
Longoria argues that the district court clearly erred by
denying him a sentence adjustment based on his assertion that the
offense was committed “other than for profit.”     See U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.1(b).   As the defendant seeking the sentencing reduction,
Longoria bore the burden to show the lack of any profit motive.
See United States v. Cuellar-Flores,
    891 F.2d 92
    , 93 (5th Cir.
1989).   Further, the district court was not required to credit
Longoria’s self-serving assertion that he did not receive a
payment over the information contained in the presentence report
(PSR).   See United States v. Brown,
    54 F.3d 234
    , 241 (5th Cir.
1995).   Longoria’s first assertion of error is thus without
merit.
Longoria also argues that the district court erred by
denying him a sentence reduction because he was a minor
participant in the offense, and by failing to make specific fact-
findings in denying the reduction.   The facts contained in the
PSR had an adequate evidentiary basis and Longoria failed to
present evidence rebutting those facts.   Accordingly, the
district court was free to adopt the findings of the PSR without
further inquiry.   See Brown,
    54 F.3d at 242
    .    Because those
findings indicate that Longoria was not substantially less
culpable than the other participants, he was not entitled to the
reduction pursuant to § 3B1.2(b).    Id. at 241.
Longoria’s assertion that he should have received a sentence
reduction based on his acceptance of responsibility likewise is
without merit.   Even assuming that Longoria did not intend to
deny the conduct comprising the offense of conviction, he falsely
No. 99-20600
-3-
and frivolously denied having received a payment from the
undercover agent.   The district court therefore did not err in
denying the reduction.   See United States v. Patino-Cardenas,
    85 F.3d 1133
    , 1135 (5th Cir. 1996).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.