Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02711/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Hernandez-Aguilar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2711

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Alfredo Hernandez-Aguilar, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 15, 2007

Filed: September 10, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal of his 120-month prison sentence for conspiring

to distribute methamphetamine, Alfredo Hernandez-Aguilar (Hernandez) argues the

district court1

 erred in refusing to grant him a safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a). 

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the court did not clearly err in

determining Hernandez failed to demonstrate he was qualified for safety-valve relief.

Appellate Case: 06-2711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2007 Entry ID: 3349736
2

Hernandez has filed a pro se motion in which he refers to two sentencing issues

he wishes to raise. It is generally our policy not to consider pro se filings by a party

who is represented by counsel, see United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722, 734 n.7

(8th Cir. 1997), and in any event the arguments fail. Accordingly, we deny the

motion. 

-2-

See United States v. Soto, 448 F.3d 993, 995 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

The information Hernandez provided during his safety-valve proffer interview

regarding the quantity of drugs he had sold, the number of transactions he had with

the government’s confidential informant, and where he had obtained the drugs, was

not consistent with the government’s own observations and information. See id. at

996 (upholding denial of safety-valve reduction where defendant’s story about his role

in offense contradicted interviews of codefendants). Additionally, given the large

drug quantities Hernandez was selling, the district court reasonably concluded

Hernandez was also being untruthful when he claimed during his proffer interview

that he could not identify his supplier. See id. (appellate court generally does not

disturb district court’s credibility findings). 

Accordingly, we affirm.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2007 Entry ID: 3349736