IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20818
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAZARO ESTRADA-BELTRAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-800-2
--------------------
June 19, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lazaro Estrada-Beltran (Estrada) appeals the sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and
abetting the transporting and moving of illegal aliens within the
United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and
18 U.S.C. § 2. Relying on the testimony of his brother and
co-defendant, Fadul Estrada-Beltran, Estrada argues that the
district court erred in increasing his offense level by six
levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(B) because his offense
involved only 21 illegal aliens.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20818
-2-
This court reviews the district court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear
error. United States v. Claiborne, 132 F.3d 253, 254 (5th Cir.
1998). “Credibility determinations in sentencing hearings are
peculiarly within the province of the trier-of-fact.” United
States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 799 (5th Cir. 1996)(internal
quotation and citation omitted).
The district court found Fadul’s testimony not credible
because it was “wholly inconsistent” with the testimony he and
Estrada offered at rearraignment regarding their involvement in
the incident on July 28, 2000. Estrada, however, does not
discuss any of the testimony offered at rearraignment. By not
addressing the district court’s specific reasons for rejecting
Fadul’s testimony, Estrada fails to demonstrate that the district
court clearly erred in its credibility determination. See United
States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 593 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 880 (2000).
The district court’s factual finding that 38 illegal aliens
were involved was based on the presentence report (PSR). Estrada
failed to show that the information in the PSR was “materially
untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United States v. Fitzgerald,
89 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, we conclude that
the district court did not err in increasing Estrada’s offense
level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(B).
AFFIRMED.