United States v. Silva-Olivas

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50896
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFREDO SILVA-OLIVAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-2107-2
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfredo Silva-Olivas (Silva) appeals his sentence following
pleading guilty to bribery of a public official, conspiracy to
import 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, and four counts of
importation of 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He argues
that the district court erred when it found that he was a leader
or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. The district court’s
determination that a defendant is an organizer or leader

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-50896
-2-
is a factual finding which this court will disturb only if it is
clearly erroneous. United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 689-90
(5th Cir. 1995).
For sentencing purposes, the district court may consider
“any information which has sufficient indicia of reliability
to support its probable accuracy.” United States v. Vital,
68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995) (quotation and citation
omitted). A presentencing report (PSR) is considered reliable
evidence for sentencing purposes. Id. Silva’s PSR contained
ample information supporting the district court’s determination
that Silva was a leader. The district court did not clearly err
when it determined, based on the information in Silva’s PSR, that
he was a leader or organizer of his drug smuggling ring.
Silva also argues that the district court failed to comply
with FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(1) when it sentenced him, by not
orally adopting the findings in the PSR. A court need not “make
a catechismic regurgitation of each fact determined;” “the
district court [may] make implicit findings by adopting the PSR.”
United States v. Duncan, 191 F.3d 569, 575 (5th Cir. 1999).
“This adopting will operate to satisfy the mandate of Rule 32
when the findings in the PSR are so clear that the reviewing
court is not left to second-guess the basis for the sentencing
decision.” Id. The district court overruled Silva’s objection
and adopted the PSR which clearly states that Silva was one of
two heads of a drug smuggling operation. The district court

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-50896
-3-
satisfied the mandate of Rule 32(c)(1). The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --