district court properly based Hernandez’s criminal history score on his reentry date instead of the date he was found and arrested. B. Calculation of Criminal History Score We next turn to whether the district court clearly erred in making the factual finding that Hernandez last reentered on June 29, 1995. According to the PSR, Hernandez informed ICE officials that he last reentered the country on June 29, 1995. This statement was not challenged or controverted by any other evidence. The district court is entitled to rely on an unchallenged portion of a PSR. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (“[T]he district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing.”); United States v. Charlesworth, 217 F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case, not only was the date provided
holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof holding that information in a psr was sufficient because the defendant offered no evidence to contradict the psr and instead only argued that the government had not sustained its burden of proof holding that defendants claim that state engaged in burdenshifting was without merit when state argued that defendant had not rebutted evidence and trial court instructed jury as to burden of proof holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant