IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-20594
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ORLANDO PARDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-15-1
_________________________________________________________________
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Orlando Pardo contends that the district court erred by
considering his involvement in a 160-kilogram cocaine transaction
as relevant conduct in determining his offense level. Pardo had
disclosed the transaction to the government during a debriefing,
which was conducted pursuant to a proffer agreement granting him
use immunity. Information provided under an agreement of use
immunity may be considered at sentencing but shall not be used in
determining the applicable guideline range unless the information
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
was "known to the government prior to entering into the cooperation
agreement . . . ." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a) & (b)(1). The district
court found that the information was known to the government prior
to the debriefing. We review this finding for clear error. United
States v. Gibson, 48 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court's finding was based upon information
provided by the probation officer in the presentence investigation
report and in response to Pardo's objection to the probation
officer's report. Although the government had the initial burden
of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had
developed knowledge of the transaction prior to the debriefing, see
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460-62 (1972), the
district court had discretion to adopt the probation officer's
findings without more specific inquiry or explanation because Pardo
offered only general unsupported objections to the probation
officer's report. United States v. Gray, 105 F.3d 956, 969 (5th
Cir. 1997); see Gibson, 48 F.3d at 878; United States v. Angulo,
927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991). Unlike United States v.
Shacklett, 921 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1991), cited by Pardo, evidence
was presented at Pardo's detention hearing, held prior to Pardo's
debriefing, showing that the government knew of Pardo's involvement
in the transaction.
2
Pardo complains for the first time on appeal that the
Government breached its promise to disclose the results of
scientific tests and examinations by failing to disclose the
qualifications and training of individuals who had compared a
recorded conversation regarding the 160-kilogram transaction with
an exemplar of Pardo's voice. We review this issue for plain
error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc). Pardo has not shown any error, plain or
otherwise, with respect to the failure of the government to
disclose information regarding the monitors' qualifications. The
judgment is
A F F I R M E D.
3