Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41224/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41224-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Trinidad-Renovato
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 25, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41224

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS TRINIDAD-RENOVATO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-03-CR-83-1

--------------------

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Trinidad-Renovato (“Trinidad”) appeals the 64-

month sentence that was imposed following entry of his guilty

plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute

approximately three kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Trinidad argues that the district

court erroneously denied him a sentence reduction under the

Sentencing Guidelines’ safety valve provision, U.S.C.G. 5C1.2.

 Case: 03-41224 Document: 0051112567 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2004
No. 03-41224

- 2 -

We review the decision to deny the application of U.S.C.G.

§ 5C1.2 for clear error. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143,

145 (5th Cir. 1996). The safety valve provision, in pertinent

part, requires that a defendant, at or before sentencing, provide

the Government with all the information and evidence he has

concerning his offense. U.S.C.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). 

We ordinarily do not disturb a district court’s credibility

determinations and see no reason to do so in the instant case. 

See United States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 2003). 

After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the district

court did not clearly err when it denied Trinidad the reduction

afforded by the safety valve provision. See Flanagan, 80 F.3d at

145. 

Trinidad also challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.

841(a) and (b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). As Trinidad concedes, his Apprendi argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th

Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-41224 Document: 0051112567 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2004