Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03906/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro C. Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3906

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Alejandro C. Mendoza, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 20, 2006

Filed: January 5, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Mendoza appeals the 144-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

18 U.S.C. § 2. Mendoza contends the district court clearly erred in denying him

safety-valve relief based on its finding that he did not truthfully provide to the

government all the information he had “concerning the offense or offenses that were

Appellate Case: 05-3906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2007 Entry ID: 3265037
-2-

part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” See U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a)(5). 

We disagree. While the denial of safety-valve relief must rest on more than the

government’s mere opinion that a defendant has been untruthful, see United States v.

Kang, 143 F.3d 379, 382-83 (8th Cir. 1998), it was Mendoza’s burden to show

affirmatively that the information he gave the government was truthful and complete,

see United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1096 (2006).

The information Mendoza provided indicated that he had acted essentially as

a courier in the drug deal underlying the offense of conviction and that he had not met

with the buyer before. The buyer, however, testified at sentencing that Mendoza had

arranged the drug deal and had sold drugs to her on several previous occasions.

Mendoza offered no evidence to rebut this witness’s testimony, which the district

court found credible. See United States v. Castaneda, 221 F.3d 1058, 1059 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (district court did not clearly err in determining defendant was not

fully truthful and in thus denying safety-valve relief, because defendant did not

introduce any evidence to support his position); cf. United States v. Quintana, 340

F.3d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 2003) (where district court directly observed defendant and

other witnesses testify, finding no clear error in court’s assessment of their

truthfulness).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2007 Entry ID: 3265037