IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50565
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEMETRIO LOPEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Rambo,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-98-CR-375-2
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Demetrio Lopez-Lopez (Lopez) pleaded guilty to transporting
illegal aliens within the United States and aiding and abetting
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) & 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Lopez argues on appeal that the district court erred when it
denied him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
Whether a defendant has sufficiently demonstrated acceptance
of responsibility is a factual question, and the standard of
review is even more deferential than clear error. See United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50565
-2-
States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996). In the
absence of rebuttal evidence, the district court may adopt
factual findings and conclusions in the presentence investigation
report (PSR) to resolve issues in dispute. See United States v.
Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995).
The PSR recommended denial of a downward adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility because Lopez maintained through his
statements to investigation agents and to the probation officer
that he was not involved in any alien smuggling. The district
court at sentencing heard and considered Lopez’ argument, and
also allowed him to be questioned by his attorney. Lopez
asserted that he was accepting responsibility for transporting
illegal aliens, but that he was not responsible for smuggling 126
aliens.
The record reflects that the district judge considered the
positions of both parties and chose to adopt the PSR. We owe
deference to the sentencing court, and based on the record, the
denial of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Franks, 46 F.3d
402, 405 (5th Cir. 1995); § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5).
AFFIRMED.