
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Shawn BOYD, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 11-50645, 11-50647
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 26, 2012.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stanley Lee Schwieger, Law Offices of Stan Schwieger, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Shawn Boyd pleaded guilty to conspiring to operate a chop shop and aiding and abetting the alteration of a motor vehicle identification number and was sentenced to concurrent 27-month terms of imprisonment. He argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred in determining the amount of loss on which it based his sentence. He suggests that he is responsible only for items that he personally stole and that he could not reasonably foresee that other items that passed through the chop shop were in fact stolen by his co-conspirators. We review for clear error the sentencing court’s factual determination of relevant conduct. United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir.2009).

The district court may properly consider acts beyond the individual defendant’s criminal activity “so long as those acts were in furtherance of the same course or conduct or common scheme or plan as the conspiracy.” United States v. Longstreet, 603 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir.2010). In this case, Boyd offered no evidence to rebut the probation officer’s report that the conspiracy involved specific stolen motorcycles and motorcycle parts and accessories valued at $47,135. His “mere objection” to the amount of loss failed to meet his burden of establishing that the sentencing evidence was unreliable or that his co-conspirators’ acts in this case were not reasonably foreseeable to him. United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 377 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Patterson, 962 F.2d 409, 414 (5th Cir.1992).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     