UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE MANUEL BAHENA,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE DE JESUS VILLA BELTRAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00214-CCE-3; 1:12-cr-00214-CCE-2)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013
2

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Walter C. Holton, Jr., HOLTON LAW 

FIRM, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants. 

Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jose Manuel Bahena and Jose De Jesus Villa Beltran 

entered guilty pleas to conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and each received a sentence of five years’ 

imprisonment. Both appellants challenge the district court’s 

determination that they did not qualify for a sentence below the 

statutory mandatory minimum under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 5C1.2 (2012). Bahena also contends that the district 

court clearly erred in his case by applying a two-level 

enhancement for possession of a firearm under USSG 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1). We affirm.

Bahena and Beltran were arrested in January 2012 when

law enforcement officers received information about drug 

trafficking at a house in Reidsville, North Carolina, and 

conducted surveillance there. Beltran and co-conspirator 

Esteban Valentin Rojas-Rivera were stopped after leaving the 

house and running a red light in a vehicle that contained 

$290,447 in cash and caused a drug dog to alert. Bahena was at 

the house and consented to a search, during which 474 kilograms 

of marijuana were located in a bedroom in sealed four-pound 

plastic bags. Also found were $2000 in cash, drug-trafficking 

records, Bahena’s and Beltran’s wallets (each containing $500), 

Bahena’s passport, and a firearm under a cushion on the couch in 

the living room. Rojas-Rivera stated that he had hired Bahena 
4

and Beltran to help him distribute marijuana. Bahena told the 

officers he had handled the gun, but was not involved with 

marijuana distribution, and simply had been hired to stay in the 

house and keep watch. Beltran said he told Rojas-Rivera he 

needed money and had been brought to the house that day, saw 

marijuana in the house, and volunteered to go with Rojas-Rivera

when he left to transport cash to an unknown destination. 

Bahena maintains that the government failed to prove 

that he possessed the firearm. However, the enhancement under 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) applies if a firearm is present during a drug 

offense, unless the defendant can show that it was “‘clearly 

improbable’ that the weapon was connected with his drug 

activities.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 630 n.8 

(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11). The district 

court did not clearly err when it determined that Bahena failed 

to make this showing.

After making statements to the officers at the time of 

arrest, neither Bahena nor Beltran provided any further 

information to the government. Beltran’s attorney confirmed at 

sentencing that he had chosen not to be interviewed further by 

the government. To be eligible for relief under the safety 

valve provision of § 5C1.2, a defendant must meet the five 

criteria set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006), the last of 

which is that he have, by the time of sentencing, truthfully 
5

provided to the government all information and evidence he has 

about the offense and other offenses that were part of the same 

course of conduct or common scheme or plan. The defendant bears 

the burden of proving that he has met the prerequisites for 

relief under the safety valve provision, including truthful 

disclosure. United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 605 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 627 (2012); see also United 

States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184-85 (4th Cir. 1996) 

(defendant must demonstrate that he has fully disclosed even if 

government does not seek information from him). Neither 

defendant showed that they had met this prerequisite. In 

addition, the district court did not err in deciding that Bahena 

was excluded on the ground that he possessed a firearm in 

connection with the offense. USSG § 5C1.2(a)(2).

We therefore affirm the sentences. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED