Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 50503 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. HEC T OR R AMON GONZ AL EZ
- CA NDE L AR I O D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 3
- CR- 6 1 6
- ALL
B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * H ect or R am onG on zal e z -C a n d e la rio p lea dedgu il t y t o conspi racy t o possess w i t h i nt entt o d i s t r ib ut e f iv e k i l o g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a i ne , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 846 , 841 ( a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1) (A)
. A tsentenci n g, G on zal ez- C an del ari o cl ai m ed t h at he w as enti t l ed t o a tw o- l evelred u ct i on in h i s of fen se l evelbecau se he m et th e s a fe tyv a lv e cr ite r io n in U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 (a ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d h im t h e t w o- l evelreducti on an d sen t en ced him 135 m on t h s i n p rison
. G on zal ezUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 06- 50503

Go n z ale zwa s s ente nce d purs u ant toth e 2 0 0 5 edition of the Se nte ncin gGuidelines . 1 PSR¶ 2 6. Inth e 2 005e dit ion, § 2D1.1(b)(7) read as follows: “If the defen dantmeet s the criteriaset forthinsub divis ion s ( 1 )- (5) of sub se ction(a) of

5 C 1 .2. . . decre a seb y2l evel s.” 2 C a n d ela r io n ow ap p ea l s, arg u i n g th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt m i sa p p l i ed the safety valve s t an da rd an d that hi s t ri alcoun selrendered i n ef fect ive assi st an ce. Saf e ty Val ve W e r evi ew t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of fac t per t ai ni ng t o as afet y valve red u cti on f

or cl ea r e rror a n d the distri ct cou rt’ s l eg a li n terp reta ti on of th e sa fety v a lv e s ta n d a r d d e n o v o . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l lanu e va , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 n .9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mi l ler , 179 F
. 3 d 9 6 1 , 963
- 64 (5t h C i r. 199 9)
. “ U n der t h e cl earl y erroneou s stand ard, ‘ [ i] f the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s accou n tof t h e evi den ce i s pl au sibl e i n l i gh tof t h e rec ord vi ew ed i n i t s enti ret y t h e courtof ap pe al s m ayno tr e ve r s e i te ve n t ho ugh c o nvi nc e d t hat had i tb e e n s i t t i ng as t he tri er of fact, i t w ou l d h a ve w eigh ed the ev i d en ce d i ff ere n tl y.’” Uni t e d S t at e s v. D a v is , 7 6 F .3 d 8 2 , 8 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )(c ita tio n o m itt e d ). Pu r suan t to U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1(b) ( 7) , G onzal ez - C andel ar i o w oul d have 1
r ec eived a t w o- l eve lr educ t i on i n hi s of fens e l eve li f

h e sat i sf

i ed t he s afet y- valve cri t eri a u n de r § 5 C 1 . 2( a) , w h i ch st ates t h at a defen da n tw h o provi des i n f orm ati on to th e G overnm en tm ay escape the i m posi t i on of a st atutor y m in im u m s e n te n c e if th e d is tr ic t co u r t fin d s th a t h e m e e ts fiv e cr ite r ia
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez , 2 6 4 F .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 2 9 -3 0 (5 th C ir .2 0 0 1 ); seealso § 35 5 3 (f ). T h e fi ft h c r ite r io n , th e o n lyo n e a t is s u e h e r e , re q u ir e s th a t “ th e d e fe n d a n t h a s tr u th fu lly pro vi ded t o t he G ove r nm ental li nf or m at i on and ev i denc e t he def endanthas c o n c e r n in g th e o ffe n s e .” § 5 C 1 .2 (a )(5 ); seealso § 3553(f ) ( 5)
. T he def

endanthas t he b ur de n o f

e s t ab l i s hi ng e l i gibi l i t y f o rt he s af

e t y va l ve r e duc t i o n, i nc l udi ng s ho w i ng t hat he t r ut hf ul l y pr o vi de d t he G o ve r nm e nt w i t h al lr e l e va nt i n fo r m a tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v . Flanaga n , 8 0 F .3d 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 -4 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). Cons i s t e ntw i t h § 5 C1. 2’ s di r e c t ive t hatt he s af e t y valve i s a ppl i c ab l e i f “ t he cou rt f i n d s th a t t h e d efen d a n t m ee ts t h e crit eria,” a d i stri ct cou rt i s req u i red toN o. 06- 50503

3 m a k e a ni n d ep en d en t d e te r m in a tio n w h e th e rth e cr ite r ia h a v e b e e n m e t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. McC ri m m on , 443 F. 3d 454, 457- 58 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e re c o r d re fle c ts th a t t h e p a r tie s , d u r i n gs e n te n c in g , p r e s e n te d th e ir resp ective a rg u m en ts reg a rd i n g w h eth er G on z a l ez -C a n d elario w a s en ti tl ed to t he s afet y valve r educ t i on. The G ove rn m en t infor m ed t he di st r i c tc our tt hat G o n z a l e z - C a n d e l a r i o d i s p u t e d t h e a mo u n to f c o c a i n e t h a tw a s a t t r ib u t e d t o h i m, t h a t G o n z a le z -C a n d e la r io r e fu s e d to d e b r ie f, a n d th a tG o n z a le z -C a n d e la r io ’s w ri t t en st atem en tw as i n suff i ci en tt o qu al i f

y h i m forthe safet y valve departure. G onzal ez - C andel ar i o c ount er ed t hat hi s f i r stt r i alat t or ney had be en i nef fec t ive ate xp l ai ni ng w hatw o ul d b e e xp e c t ed of G o nz al e z - Cande l ar i o dur i ng t he debr i ef i ng. W hen G onzal ez - C and elario off ere d to t estif

y re ga rd i ng hi s i nef

f ec t ive a s s is ta n c e cla im , th e co u r t d e n ie d h is re q u e s t, s ta tin g“I d o n ’ t b e lie v e h im an yw ay. ” Th e di st ri ctcourtt h ereaf t er denied G on zal ez- C an del ari o’ s r equ estf or t he s afet y valve r educ t i on. The di st r i c tc ou rt’ s i m pl i c i tfac t ualf i ndi ng t hat G o n z a le z -C a n d e la r io w a s n o t en tit le d to th e s a fe tyv a lv e re d u c tio n is n o t c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . S ee D a v is , 7 6 F .3 d a t 8 4 . Inef f ect i ve A ssi st an ce of

Cou n sel G on za l ez -C a n d elario also a rg u es th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed i ts di s c r e t i o n when itre f us e d t o pe r m i thi m t o i nt r o duc e e vi de nc e a ts e nt e nc i ng regardi n g h i s i n ef

fect ive assi st an ce c l ai m i n rel ati on t o t h e safe ty v a lve i ssue. H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is co u n s e l re n d e r e d in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . T h i s c ou rtgen eral l y does n otres ol ve cl ai m s of in e ffect ive assi st an ce of c o uns e lo n di r e c ta ppe alb e c aus e t h e r e c o r d i s r ar e l y s uf f i c i e nt l y de ve l o pe d. Uni t e d St at e s v . Haese , 162 F
. 3d 359 , 363 ( 5th C i r. 199 8)
. “ U n l ess t h e di st ri ct court h as developed a recor d on t h e defen da n t ’ s al l egati on s, [t h i s c ou rt] cann ot fai rl y e va l u a te the m erits of t h e claim
. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Bounds , 943 F. 2d 541, 5 4 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Higd on , 8 3 2 F .2d 312 , 313
- 14 (5t h C i r. 1 9 8 7 ). G o n z a l e z -C a n d e la r io ’ s a r g u m e n t is n o t r e v ie w a b le o n d ir e c t a p p e a l in th is ca s e b e c a u s e th e re c o r d is n o t s u ffic ie n tlyd e v e l o p e d o n th e is s u e . W eN o. 06- 50503

4 de c l i ne t o a ddr e s s t hi s c l ai m o f i ne f fe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e o n di r e c ta ppe alw i t ho ut prej udi c e t o G onzal ez -C a n d elario ’ s r i ghtt o b r i ng i ti n a 28 U
. S. C
. § 2255 p roce ed i n g . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G u l ley , 5 2 6 F .3 d 8 0 9 , 8 2 1 (5 th C ir .), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 1 5 9 (20 0 8 ). AF F I RMED.