IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50673

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MISAEL JOSE RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Jose Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CR-189-34

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Misael Jose Rodriguez-Sanchez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and was sentenced to the statutory minimum 

term of 10 years of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. 

On appeal, Rodriguez-Sanchez contends that the district court erred by 

denying him a safety valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; finding that he 

 

* 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

October 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50673 Document: 00513714884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2016
No. 15-50673

2

was accountable for 1.3 kilograms of methamphetamine actual; and denying 

him a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

With respect to the safety valve, Rodriguez-Sanchez argues that the 

district court erred by failing to make findings of fact as to whether his letter 

was truthful and conflating the safety valve requirements with those for 

substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Because he did not specifically 

raise either of the arguments he now asserts in the district court, our review is 

for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 

(5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, Rodriguez-Sanchez must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have

the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Rodriguez-Sanchez has not demonstrated a clear or obvious error. While 

the district court did not make specific factual findings as to the truthfulness 

of the letter, it did give a brief explanation as to why it was rejecting the 

request for a safety valve, namely that the letter was of unknown content and 

not provided to the Government until shortly before sentencing. Implicit in 

the denial was the district court’s determination that Rodriguez-Sanchez had 

not given the Government sufficient time to verify the information in the letter 

and, accordingly, had not met his burden to demonstrate that he truthfully 

provided the Government with all relevant information and evidence regarding 

the offense. See United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996); 

United States v. Powell, 387 F. App’x 491, 496 (5th Cir. 2010).1 Nor is there 

any indication in the record that the district court conflated the requirements 

 

1 Although unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not 

precedential, they may nevertheless be persuasive. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 

& n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-50673 Document: 00513714884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2016
No. 15-50673

3

for the safety valve with those for substantial assistance. The district court 

found safety valve relief was inappropriate because Rodriguez-Sanchez had 

not carried his burden to demonstrate that he debriefed truthfully, given that 

the Government did not have a reasonable amount of time to verify the 

information provided in Rodriguez-Sanchez’s late-disclosed letter. See

Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 146-47; Powell, 387 F. App’x at 496.

Further, even if Rodriguez-Sanchez had demonstrated a clear or obvious 

error, he has not demonstrated that he can satisfy the third and fourth prongs 

of the plain error test. Accordingly, he has not demonstrated plain error. See 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65.

As to Rodriguez-Sanchez’s remaining arguments, the Government 

contends that if we reject the safety valve argument, even assuming RodriguezSanchez’s remaining issues are meritorious, any error must be harmless 

because Rodriguez-Sanchez received the statutory minimum sentence. Absent 

the application of a statutory exception―a reduction under the safety valve or 

for substantial assistance―the district court did not have the authority to 

impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. See United States v. Montes, 

602 F.3d 381, 390 (5th Cir. 2010). “An error in calculating the advisory 

Guidelines sentencing range in such circumstances is harmless, because the 

district court could not have imposed a lower sentence.” United States v. 

Victor, 519 F. App’x 306, 307 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Sandle, 

123 F.3d 809, 813 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we need not consider 

Rodriguez-Sanchez’s remaining arguments because any error was harmless.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50673 Document: 00513714884 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2016