IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10793

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FIDEL ALAIN MARTIN-SOSA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-41-10

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Fidel Alain Martin-Sosa appeals the 135-month sentence he received for 

conspiring to deal methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred 

in denying him mitigating-role and safety-valve adjustments. Seeing no error 

under our deferential standard for reviewing those rulings, we AFFIRM. 

We review the district court’s guidelines determinations for clear error.

United States v. Sanchez-Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714, 721 (5th Cir. 2017); United 

* 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

July 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10793 Document: 00515474568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
No. 19-10793

2

States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 345 (5th Cir. 2011). A decision is not clearly 

erroneous if it is “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. 

Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013).

The mitigating-role provision of the Sentencing Guidelines “provides a 

range of adjustments for a defendant who plays a part in committing the 

offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average 

participant in the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)). The 

commentary to § 3B1.2 provides a “non-exhaustive list of factors” to consider 

in determining whether to reduce the offense level, and, if so, by how much. 

Id. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(i)-(v)). The burden is on the defendant to 

demonstrate his entitlement to the downward adjustment. United States v. 

Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 613 (5th Cir. 2016). 

The record details Martin-Sosa’s participation in the drug transaction 

and demonstrates that he understood that he was involved in a conspiracy to 

traffic three kilograms of methamphetamine, that he participated in at least

some of the planning or organizing for that crime, and that he would be paid 

for his involvement. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3)(C)(i)-(v)). 

Accordingly, application of the factors counsels against the adjustment and 

demonstrates that Martin-Sosa was not “peripheral to the advancement of the 

illicit activity.” United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir. 2005) 

(citation omitted). Although there may be some evidence weighing in favor of 

finding that Martin-Sosa had a mitigating role, when some factors support the 

adjustment, but others do not, the district court does not clearly err in denying 

the adjustment. See United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264-65 (5th 

Cir. 2017). The district court therefore did not clearly err in rejecting the 

mitigating-role adjustment. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); see Zuniga, 

720 F.3d at 590.

 Case: 19-10793 Document: 00515474568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
No. 19-10793

3

A two-level “safety valve” adjustment applies for drug offenses if the 

defendant meets certain criteria. Id. §§ 2D1.1(b)(18); § 5C1.2(a). The district 

court held that Martin-Sosa did not meet the requirement that he truthfully 

provide the Government with all known information about “the offense or 

offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme 

or plan.” Id. § 5C1.2(a)(5); see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). The defendant has the 

burden of establishing eligibility for such a reduction. See United States v. 

Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996). The record contains evidence 

to suggest that Martin-Sosa did not fully and truthfully provide the 

Government with all known information regarding his financial stake in the 

conspiracy or how he became involved in the crime. As a result, the district 

court did not clearly err in denying the safety-valve adjustment. See Zuniga, 

720 F.3d at 590 (citation omitted). 

Finally, to the extent that Martin-Sosa attempts to challenge the 

substantive reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence on the basis that 

his sentence fails to take into account his entitlement to the safety-valve and 

mitigating-role adjustments, his claim is reviewed under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 

762, 767 (2020). The record does not reflect that the district court failed to 

account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave 

significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear 

error of judgment in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United 

States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Rather, Martin-Sosa’s 

arguments amount to no more than a request for this court to reweigh the 

§ 3553(a) factors, which this court will not do as the district court is “in a 

superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with 

 Case: 19-10793 Document: 00515474568 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
No. 19-10793

4

respect to a particular defendant.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 

531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 19-10793 Document: 00515474568 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/01/2020