of an in camera inspection of certain files allegedly possessed by the government, its denial of Lowder’s motion for a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence, or its sentencing determinations. The judgment of the district court is in all respects AFFIRMED. 1 . The district court relied on this standard of review to reject all of Lowder's objections to the PSR because Lowder presented no sworn rebuttal evidence. See Parker, 133 F.3d at 329. To the extent that the district court based its sentencing determinations on facts found by the PSR, we agree. See id. To the extent that Low-der’s objections involve only challenges to the PSR’s conclusions, however, we will address those claims on the merits. Cf. United States v. Martinez-Cortez, 988 F.2d 1408, 1415 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We decline the government's invitation to
holding that a plaintiffs complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face   that is factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged holding that even when the defendant made no objections to the psr below wc must address whether the psr alone even when accepted as true and reliable was legally adcquate to support the relevant enhancement holding that where the defendant was in default the district court correctly accepted the fact allegations of the complaint as true holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss