Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04149/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Hernandez-Parra
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4149

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Mario Hernandez-Parra, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006

Filed: December 21, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mario Hernandez-Parra appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute one kilogram or more of a heroin mixture

or substance and 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture or substance, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Parra contends the court

erred in concluding that he was ineligible for safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a), upon finding that he had not been completely truthful with the government

regarding his drug-dealing involvement with a co-defendant.

Appellate Case: 05-4149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2006 Entry ID: 3261490
-2-

To receive safety-valve relief, Parra had “to show, through affirmative conduct,

that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant

crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.

1996). We review for clear error the district court’s findings as to the completeness

and truthfulness of Parra’s safety-valve proffer. See United States v. Soto, 448 F.3d

993, 995 (8th Cir. 2006).

Upon careful review of the record before us on appeal, we cannot say that the

district court clearly erred in its findings. The evidence presented to the court

indicated that Parra was working with the co-defendant in question within the drug

conspiracy. We also disagree with Parra’s argument that granting an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction is inconsistent with denying safety-valve relief. Safety-valve

relief and an offense-level reduction for accepting responsibility are distinct forms of

sentencing relief that entail separate requirements. In particular, a defendant who is

given an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is not required to admit conduct

beyond his offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 1(a). On the other

hand, safety-valve relief requires the defendant to give a truthful proffer of all the

information he has regarding “the offense or offenses that were part of the same

course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5);

Romo, 81 F.3d at 85 (to satisfy safety-valve criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5),

defendant was required to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement

in the crime and his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of

others); see also United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1013 n.1 (8th Cir. 2005)

(§ 5C1.2(a) is derived from and identical to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2006 Entry ID: 3261490