* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. MARIA SERA DE AGUIRRE also known as, Maria M Aguirre also known as, Magdalena Aguirre Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-01992
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Maria Sera De Aguirre pleaded guilty to importing and possessing more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. At sentencing, she claimed that she was entitled to a two-level reduction in her offense level because she met the “safety valve” criterion in USSG § 5C1.2(a). The district denied her the two-level reduction and sentenced her to 30 months in prison. De Aguirre now appeals, United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 31, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50435

1 United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963–64 (5th Cir. 1999).

2 USSG § 5C1.2(a).

3 Id. § 5C1.2(a)(5).

4 Id. § 5C1.2(a). 2 contending that thedistrict court misapplied thesafety-valvestandard. Finding no error, we AFFIRM. 1. We reviewthe district court’s findings offact pertaining to a safetyvalve reduction for clear error and the district court’s legal interpretation of the safety-valve standard de novo. 1 Under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(11), a defendant isentitled toa two-level reduction in her offense level ifshe can meet the safety-valve requirements found in § 5C1.2. That provision requires “the [district] court [to] find[] that the defendant” has met five conditions. 2 Only the fifth condition is relevant here; it provides: [N]ot later than the time ofthe sentencing hearing, the defendant [must have] truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other i nformation to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement. 3 The rule, by its plain terms, requires “the [district] court [to] find[] that the defendant” has “truthfully provided to the Government” all relevant information about the offense. 4 In other words, the district court must find that the defendant has actually been truthful.No. 07-50435

3 2. DeAguirre contends that the court belowmistakenly thought this fifth condition required it to determine only whether the government believed shewas telling it the truth—not whether she was in fact telling the truth. De Aguirre reaches this conclusion by focusing on one statement the district court made at sentencing: “Motion for continuance is overruled. It’s plain to methat theGovernment does not find her credible,
so it’s just a waste of time.” (emphasis added). This statement, however, must be read in context. Just prior to this statement, De Aguirre asked the district court for a continuance so that she coul d speak to the government and clear up any confusion it might have about what she said. The statement, then, was a response to that request. The district court was overruling the request for continuance because there was no need togive DeAguirre more time to confer with the government when the government already did not believe her. In other words, the request for continuance would be, in the district court’s words, “just a waste of time.” After this exchange, the district court asked DeAguirre if she had any other objections. She responded that she had
none. She did not complain to the district court that it was not independently determining whether she had been truthful. Nor did she ask for an explicit ruling on her request for an evidentiary hearing. Once the district court’s comment about the government not finding De Aguirre credible is put i nto context, nothing else suggests that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. Instead, it appears that the district court agreedNo. 07-50435

4 with the government’s argument that De Aguirre was not being honest when she said she had been collecting information on a drug organization for 30years. The district court’s implicit factual finding that DeAguirredid not provide truthful information to the government is not clearly
erroneous. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying De Aguirre safety-valve relief. AFFIRMED.