United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50083

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Chayna Holguin, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CR-13-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Chayna Holguin pleaded guilty to importation of 40 grams or more of 

fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of 

fentanyl. These offenses carry five-year statutory minimum sentences. See

21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(F); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(B)(vi). However, over the Government’s objection, the district court 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50083 Document: 00516679541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023
No. 22-50083

2

concluded that Holguin was eligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(f), as amended by the First Step Act. Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s

reasoning in United States v. Lopez, 998 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2021), the district 

court determined that § 3553(f)(1) only excludes defendants (otherwise 

eligible under the other parts of the statute) who meet all three disqualifying 

criteria enumerated in that subsection. Thus, although Holguin had a prior 

three-point offense, she was eligible for safety valve relief because she did not 

also have four criminal history points, excluding points from a one-point 

offense, and a prior two-point violent offense. See § 3553(f)(1). The district 

court sentenced Holguin below the statutory minimum to concurrent terms 

of 37 months of imprisonment.

The Government appeals the district court’s determination that 

Holguin was eligible for safety valve relief as provided in § 3553(f) and the 

resulting imposition of a sentence lower than the statutory minimum. We

review the district court’s legal interpretation of the safety valve statute de 

novo. United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). 

After Holguin’s judgment of conviction was entered, we decided 

United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed

(U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-6391). We held in Palomares that “defendants 

[are] ineligible for safety valve relief if they run afoul of any one of [the]

requirements” enumerated in § 3553(f)(1). 52 F.4th at 647. Looking to the 

text of the statute, we rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conjunctive approach of 

linguistic interpretation in Lopez and conversely applied the distributive 

approach. See id. at 642-47. 

As both the Government and Holguin aptly agree, because Holguin 

had a prior three-point offense, Palomares disqualifies her from safety valve 

relief under § 3553(f). See Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647. Further, although 

Holguin argues that Palomares was incorrectly decided as a matter of 

Case: 22-50083 Document: 00516679541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2023
No. 22-50083

3

statutory interpretation, she and the Government agree that our decision in

Palomares is binding until the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc 

overrules this safety valve issue. See United States v. James, 950 F.3d 289, 

292-93 (5th Cir. 2020). 

In light of the foregoing, Holguin’s sentence is VACATED, and the 

matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Case: 22-50083 Document: 00516679541 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2023