finding in the PSR, the defendant must present rebuttal evidence to disprove or discredit the information in the PSR. See Huerta, 182 F.3d at 364 (“A defendant’s rebuttal evidence must demonstrate that the information contained in the PSR is ‘materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable,’ and ‘[m]ere objections do not suffice as competent rebuttal evidence.’ ” (Parker, 133 F.3d at 329)). In framing his objection, defense counsel focused on one factual finding contained in the PSR — that Guevara’s false statements to law enforcement “impeded the prosecution or investigation in his current offense.” The district court properly narrowed its focus to that specific finding and applied the general rule regarding objections to information contained in the PSR. See Brooks, 681 F.3d at 717 (<HOLDING>). With that said, Guevara is not required to
holding that the prosecutor is not required to provide the defense with the names of rebuttal witnesses because until the defense case has been presented the state cannot know of witnesses needed for rebuttal holding that state may not rely on its own questioning as an invitation to rebuttal concerning character of victim holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence holding that where defendants failed to present rebuttal evidence the court was allowed to rely on the psrs finding that their false statements significantly impeded the investigation holding that the disclosure of proper rebuttal witness was not required