Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03455/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abel Sanchez-Rocha
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3455

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Abel Sanchez-Rocha, also known as *

Felice Rodriguez, Jr., also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Feliciano Rodriguez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2006

Filed: December 7, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Abel Sanchez-Rocha appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more

than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. Rocha contends the court erred in finding he was

ineligible for safety-valve relief. 

Appellate Case: 05-3455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2006 Entry ID: 2116513
-2-

To receive the safety-valve reduction, Rocha 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 finding that Rocha did

not satisfy his burden. See United States v. Weekly, 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir.),

modified on other grounds, 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 1997).

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

district court clearly erred in finding that Rocha gave inconsistent answers about his

drug sources and avoided some of the government’s proffer-interview questions.

Rocha complains that the court considered only the letters from the prosecutor and the

arguments at the sentencing hearing, but the district court also had before it a letter

from defense counsel after the first proffer about Rocha’s refreshed recollection, as

well as Rocha’s sentencing testimony during which he was unable to remember

details about one of his proffer interviews, was evasive, and disclaimed knowledge

about the cost of the methamphetamine he had bought and about the contact

information for his drug source or sources. See Romo, 81 F.3d at 85 (defendant was

required to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement in crime and

his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of others).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2006 Entry ID: 2116513