
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier Gonzalez GARCIA, also known as La Muerta, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-21167.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 14, 2004.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Fred A. Kowalski, Law Office of Fred A Kowalski, Michael McGhee Scott, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Gonzalez Garcia (Garcia) appeal the 168-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money derived from drug trafficking.

Garcia contends that the district court should have reduced his offense level by three levels under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 because he did not substantially complete the offense underlying the conspiracy charge before being arrested. We review this claim for plain error because Garcia did not raise it in the district court. See United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 415 (5th Cir.1994). The record shows that Garcia substantially completed the underlying offense as set forth in the indictment; his argument about his geographical distance from Mexico at the time of his arrest is irrelevant. The district court committed no clear or obvious error by not reducing the offense level. See United States v. Waskom, 179 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir.1999) (§ 2Xl.l(b)(2) requires no reduction for conspirator who made “substantial progress” in criminal endeavor).

Garcia also contends that there was no evidentiary support for the drug-quantity calculation used to establish his base offense level. The Presentence Report (PSR) relied on the corroborated statements of co-conspirators that linked Garcia directly to the transportation of 17.22 kilograms of cocaine. Because Garcia did not present any evidence to rebut the PSR’s factual findings, the district court was entitled to rely on those findings. See United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir.1995). Further, the PSR’s findings were not the sort of “[b]ald, conclusionary statements” we disapproved of in United States v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814, 817-18 (5th Cir.1993).

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     