IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51030
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN FRANCISCO SOLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-01-CR-109-2
--------------------
August 23, 2002
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Francisco Solis appeals the sentence imposed following
his conviction for a marijuana conspiracy. He argues that the
district court relied on erroneous information in the presentence
report (PSR) and on an erroneous recollection of the evidence
presented at trial to impose a two-level upward adjustment under
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 for a leadership role in the offense.
Facts contained in a PSR are considered reliable and may be
adopted without further inquiry if the defendant fails to present
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-51030
-2-
competent rebuttal evidence. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d
322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). Solis presented no evidence at the
sentencing hearing, and our review of the record convinces us that
the testimony adduced at trial, as well as the facts contained in
the PSR, are sufficient to support the district court’s imposition
of the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.
Solis also argues that to the extent that the district court’s
reasons for overruling his objection to the PSR and imposing the
role adjustment are unclear, a remand is required for the entry of
more explicit factual findings. This court has held that although
specific findings by the district court would be helpful for
appellate review, a district court is not required under U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1 to make any finding of fact more specific than that the
defendant is a “manager” or “leader.” See United States v.
Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 221-22 (5th Cir. 1989). Solis has not
shown that the district court’s factual findings are insufficient
or that a remand is required. Accordingly, his sentence is
AFFIRMED.