Case ID: f-appx_190/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan Rene SAINZ-ORTEGA, Appellant.
    No. 05-3053.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 20, 2006.
    Filed: Aug. 4, 2006.
    Jeffrey S. Paulsen, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
    Juan Rene Sainz-Ortega, Elk River, MN, pro se.
    Stephen V. Grigsby, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

A jury found Juan Rene Sainz-Ortega guilty of three drug offenses and of failing to appear for trial. The district court sentenced him to a total of 246 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, Sainz-Ortega argues that the district court erred by denying him safety-valve relief.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying safety-valve relief. See United States v. White, 447 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). The question was whether SainzOrtega’s prior drug conviction was related to his instant drug convictions as relevant conduct within the meaning of U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3, 4A1.1, and 4A1.2. The answer to that question turned on a credibility determination by the district court regarding Sainz-Ortega’s testimony at the sentencing hearing about his prior drug conviction. The district court’s decision not to believe Sainz-Ortega’s testimony is virtually unreviewable on appeal, and we have no cause to disturb it in the circumstances presented here. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575,105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 
      
      . The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.