UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RUBEN RUIZ-CHAVEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00027-5)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 1, 2011

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter C. Anderson, ANDERSON TERPENING, PLLC, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ruben Ruiz-Chavez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Ruiz-Chavez was sentenced 

to 120 months’ imprisonment. Ruiz-Chavez’s counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California

A district court’s determination of whether a 

defendant has satisfied the safety valve criteria is a question 

of fact reviewed for clear error. United States v. Wilson, 114 

F.3d 429, 432 (4th Cir. 1997). This deferential standard of 

review permits reversal only if this court is “‘left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.’” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 

(1985)).

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating his opinion that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred 

in finding that Ruiz-Chavez did not meet the requirements for 

the safety valve reduction. Ruiz-Chavez was notified of his 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a 

brief. The Government has declined to file a responsive brief. 

We affirm.
3

 To qualify for the safety valve provision, the 

defendant must establish the existence of five prerequisites. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006); USSG § 5C1.2. The burden is on the 

defendant to prove that all five safety valve requirements have 

been met. United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 669 (4th 

Cir. 1996). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

the district court’s finding that Ruiz-Chavez did not qualify 

for the safety valve provision because he was not truthful in 

his statement to the Government is not clearly erroneous. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Ruiz-Chavez, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Ruiz-Chavez requests that 

a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Ruiz-Chavez.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED