Jose Manuel Guerrero-Granados (Guerrero) appeals the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of importing more than five kilograms of cocaine. Guerrero argues that the district court violated Fed.R.CrimP. 32(i)(3)(B) when it did not make a specific ruling or finding on his request for a downward adjustment for a mitigating role. Guerrero did not object during the sentencing hearing regarding whether the district court complied with Rule 32. We review for plain error. See United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

The record shows that the district court stated specific reasons during the sentence hearing that can be reasonably construed as an explicit ruling on Guerrero’s request. Alternatively, because the district court adopted the presentence report (PSR) and because the findings in the PSR are sufficiently clear that we are not left to second guess the basis for the sentencing decision, the district court’s adoption of the PSR satisfies the mandates of Rule 32. See United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1281 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.