United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3468

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Violeta Hinojosa, also known as Sophie

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: May 16, 2013

 Filed: August 27, 2013

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Violeta Hinojosa appeals, following a guilty jury verdict on two

counts–conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of

methamphetamine–arguing there wasinsufficient evidence to support the verdict. At
sentencing Hinojosa sought safety valve relief, which the district court denied. She

1

appeals this denial as well. We affirm Hinojosa's conviction and sentence. 

I. BACKGROUND

During the course of an extensivemethamphetamine distribution investigation,

officers identified Hinojosa as someone who delivered methamphetamine to a dealer

under investigation. Elizabeth White, a drug user recently released from prison,

began assisting drug enforcement agents in the investigation in March 2009. On

April 17, 2009, White participated in a controlled buy and went to the home of

Miguel Castaneda to purchase methamphetamine. Castaneda's home was under

officer surveillance at the time. During this time period, a woman, identified at trial

by several witnesses as Hinojosa, drove up to Castaneda's house and entered and

exited the residence within a few minutes' time. The government alleged that

Hinojosa delivered methamphetamine at that time. Officers arrested Hinojosa and

charged her with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and distribution of

methamphetamine. The jury convicted Hinojosa on both counts. 

Prior to sentencing, Hinojosa provided an interview to law enforcement

officers. Based upon this interview, during which Hinojosa denied all involvement

in the matter, Hinojosa sought safety valve relief at sentencing, which the court

denied. The district court stated:

I don't want to say that as a matter of law if someone is convicted and

does not acknowledge their guilt in the safety valve interview that that

precludes that person from obtaining the safety valve, but it certainly

makes it very difficult for that person to obtain [the] relief of the safety

valve because one of the primary purposes of the safety valve isto show

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.

-2-
that that person is contrite and at least has an attempt to cooperate or be

honest about what they were involved with.

But given the testimony and the evidence that's been presented, I don't

think that the . . . defendant has sustained her burden of proof to show

that she's entitled to the safety valve. And the main reason has to do

with the proffer.

The district court sentenced Hinojosa to 60 months' imprisonment. On appeal

Hinojosa challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict and the

district court's denial of safety valve relief. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction de

novo. United States v. Phythian, 529 F.3d 807, 811 (8th Cir. 2008). "'[W]e reverse

only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Pruneda, 518 F.3d 597,

605 (8th Cir. 2008)). On appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable

to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government and

accepting all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the jury's

verdict. United States v. Flores, 474 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Very generally, Hinojosa argues on appeal that this case is based upon

misidentification. She claims that her sister and her mother are involved in drug

trafficking but that she is not and never has been. She claims that those who testified

against her, identifying her as one who delivered methamphetamine to Castaneda on

multiple occasions over time, all testified in an attempt to reduce their own sentences

or similar such benefits and are thus unreliable. She further claims that the officers

-3-
who identified her in photographs taken during a delivery at the home of Castaneda

were mistaken and that they did not have a clear view of her, which Hinojosa claims

raises significant doubt that it was in fact Hinojosa and not her sister that they saw. 

Hinojosa is unable to overcome her burden on appeal. Three cooperating

witnessestestified they saw Hinojosa delivering methamphetamine over an extended

period of time, in concert with one or more of her family members. Castaneda

testified that Hinojosa and her family members were his primary methamphetamine

suppliersfor nearly five years. The circumstances of the controlled delivery on April

17, 2009, as explained through the testimony of the Drug Enforcement

Administration agents involved, further corroborated the trial testimony of the

cooperating witnesses. And, while there were, as always, credibility determinations

to be made regarding the testifying witnesses, their testimony was corroborated and,

ultimately, believed by the jury. United States v. Jefferson, No. 12-2643, 2013 WL

3970193, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013) ("'We have repeatedly upheld jury verdicts

based solely on the testimony of co-conspirators and cooperating witnesses, noting

that it is within the province of the jury to make credibility assessments and resolve

conflicting testimony.'" (quoting United States v. Coleman, 525 F.3d 665, 666 (8th

Cir. 2008)). On these facts, we have no difficulty concluding the evidence was

sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Hinojosa guilty. 

B. Safety Valve Relief

This court reviews for clear error a district court's findings regarding the

completeness and truthfulness of information provided by a defendant and the

ultimate denial of safety valve relief for clear error. United States v. Polk, 715 F.3d

238, 253 (8th Cir. 2013). The sentencing court here did not clearly err.

"In the safety valve statute and parallel advisory guidelines provision,

'Congress provided relief for less culpable drug offenders from its harsh mandatory

-4-
minimum sentences.'" United States v. Brooks, No. 12-3588, 2013 WL 3746026, at

*2 (8th Cir. July 18, 2013) (quoting United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645, 646 (8th

Cir. 1999)). "To be eligible for this statutory relief, [Hinojosa] 'bore the burden at the

sentencing hearing of establishing each ofthe five requirementsfor safety valve relief

by a preponderance ofthe evidence.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Razo-Guerra, 534

2

F.3d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 2008)). The significant issue in this case is whether Hinojosa

satisfied the fifth element, requiring that not later than the time of the sentencing

hearing, she truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence she

had concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct

or of a common scheme or plan. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

Hinojosa simplifies the district court's stance on this final element, claiming

that the district court determined that Hinojosa could not get safety valve relief solely

because the jury found her guilty. A fair reading of the transcript, however, reveals

that the district court fully understood the legal rubric in the safety valve context. As

the court noted, it is true that a guilty jury verdict does not legally foreclose any

possibility that a defendant could receive safety valve relief. United States v. Sherpa,

110 F.3d 656, 660 (9th Cir. 1997). According to the transcript, however, the district

We have explained that 2

[t]he safety valve requires that: (1) the defendant does not have more

than one criminal history point; (2) the defendant did not use violence

or a credible threat thereof or possess a dangerous weapon in the

commission of the crime; (3) the offense did not result in anyone's death

or serious injury; (4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader,

manager, orsupervisor of othersin the offense; and (5) not later than the

time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to

the government all information and evidence the defendant has

concerning the offense.

United States v. Garcia, 675 F.3d 1091, 1094 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted).

-5-
court was well-apprised of this jurisprudence. The district court reasoned that a

defendant who denies guilt in the face of a guilty verdict is not thereby precluded

from safety valve eligibility "as a matter of law." On the merits, the court

appropriately viewed the trial testimony, including that of the three cooperating

witnesses and the government agents that testified, as well as the evidence and

arguments presented at sentencing concerning Hinojosa's and her families'

participation in drug trafficking, in light of Hinojosa's denial of involvement

altogether, and arrived at its determination that she was not eligible for safety valve

relief:

But given the testimony and the evidence that's been presented, I don't

think that the . . . defendant has sustained her burden of proof to show

that she's entitled to the safety valve. And the main reason has to do

with the proffer.

The district court did not clearly err in this conclusion.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

______________________________

-6-