IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11261

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUBER BENITEZ-ALVARADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-57-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Huber Benitez-Alvarado (Benitez) appeals the 135-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute a controlled substance. Finding no error, we affirm.

First, Benitez argues that the district court erred by declining to apply 

the two-level safety valve reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(17) and 

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We review the district court’s decision whether to apply the 

 

* 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

August 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11261 Document: 00513168140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2015
No. 14-11261

2

safety valve reduction for clear error. United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 

345 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Section 2D1.1(b)(17) prescribes that a defendant is eligible for a two-level 

reduction, commonly called a safety valve reduction, if he satisfies the five 

criteria set forth in § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). § 2D1.1(b)(17). The fifth criterion, the 

only pertinent issue here, requires that, by the time of the sentencing hearing, 

the defendant must have “truthfully provided the Government all information 

and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.” § 5C1.2(a)(5). The 

defendant has the burden of establishing his eligibility for the safety valve 

reduction, including the burden of showing that he truthfully provided the 

Government all information and evidence about the offense. United States v. 

Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145-47 (5th Cir. 1996).

The record supports a conclusion that Benitez did not truthfully provide 

all relevant information. See Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 145-47; McElwee, 646 F.3d 

at 345. After his arrest, Benitez initially claimed that a stranger gave him 

$400 to deliver a soda box that turned out to contain methamphetamine. He 

later admitted that he knew the person, co-conspirator Nicolas Bueno-Huerta,

but he continued to assert that he was unaware initially that he was engaged 

in a drug transaction, believing he was simply doing Bueno-Huerta a favor. 

Other evidence, including an apparent drug ledger found in his car, further 

contradicted his statements. His inconsistent statements and implausible 

story support the denial of the safety valve reduction. See, e.g., United States 

v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Second, Benitez contends that the district court erred by declining to 

apply a two-level or four-level downward adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.2 based 

on his minor or minimal role in the offense. We review the district court’s 

 Case: 14-11261 Document: 00513168140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2015
No. 14-11261

3

determination whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant for 

clear error. United States v. Fernandez, 770 F.3d 340, 345 (5th Cir. 2014).

A mitigating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 is applicable 

when the defendant “plays a part in committing the offense that makes him 

substantially less culpable than the average participant.” § 3B1.2, comment. 

(n.3A). The defendant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of 

the evidence that his role in the offense was either minimal or minor. United 

States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2001).

Benitez’s argument that he is entitled to a mitigating role adjustment 

because he was merely “a guy who mowed lawns who received $400 to deliver 

drugs from one drug supplier to another drug supplier” is unavailing. Courier 

status alone does not warrant a role adjustment. See United States v. Pofahl, 

990 F.2d 1456, 1485 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 

138 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover, Benitez’s assertion that the district court 

incorrectly determined that he was an integral part of the drug conspiracy 

without “weighing his participation against the other participants” is 

unsupported by the record. The record establishes that Benitez played an 

indispensable role in the offense by transporting three kilograms of 

methamphetamine, worth $36,000, from a restaurant to the meeting site and 

watching the drugs until they were retrieved by a co-conspirator. This is 

sufficient to support the district court’s findings. See Buenrostro, 868 F.2d at 

138; see also United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Benitez’s contention that the Government was required to rebut his request 

for a mitigating role reduction is misguided. See Garcia, 242 F.3d at 597.

Benitez has failed to demonstrate any error in the district court’s 

judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 14-11261 Document: 00513168140 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2015