* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
May 27, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40892 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISRAEL SALINAS-CAPISTRAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-38-1

--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Israel Salinas-Capistran appeals the 120-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-pl ea conviction for possessing with

the inten t to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana.

Salinas argues that the dis trict court erred in calculating the

amount of weight attributed to him for sentencing purposes. He

contends that, under 21 U.S.C. § 802(16), “fibers” should have been

excluded from the weight of the marijuana and that, had they been

so excluded, he would not have been subject to the 10-yearNo. 04-40892 -2-

mandatory-minimum sentenc e under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). He

asserts that the defini tion of marijuana for purposes of

determining drug weight and corresponding sentence under the

guidelines differs from the definition of marijuana for statutory

purposes.

The argument fails b ecause both the indictment to which

S alinas unconditionally pleaded guilty and the factual basis for

his plea stipulated that the offense involved more than 1,000

kilograms, specifically 1,050 kilograms, of marijuana. S alinas has

never attempted to withdraw his guilty plea
, and his valid plea

forecloses his challenge to the amount of drugs attributed to him

for sentencing purposes.

Salinas next argues that he was entitled to a sentence below

the mandatory min imum under the “safety-valve” provision of

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. He urges that the district court erred in

finding that he did not truthfully provide all information that he

had concerning the offense because the Government did not show that

any of the information he provided was false.

The district court’s de termination that Salinas had not

truthfully pr ovided all the pertinent information regarding the

offense is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. See

United States v. Miller
, 179 F.3d 961, 963-64 (5th Cir. 1999); see

also United Stat es v. Bringier , 405 F.3d 310, 315 n.3 (5th Cir.

2005). Salinas has not demonstrated error, clear or otherwise, on

the district court’s part. Although he relies on the fact that theNo. 04-40892 -3-

Government did not show that any of the information he provided was

in fact false, Agent Thrash’s testimony shows that the information

Salinas provided was so general and vague that it could neither be

confirmed nor denied. The testimony indicates that, even if the

information Salinas gave was not false, it was incomplete. It

further indicates that Salinas’ story was incredible, given the

unlikelihood that a drug dealer would entrust such a large quantity

of marijuana with such a high street value to a person unknown to

or so tenuously connected to him.

Sal inas has not demonstrated any error in the district

court’s judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.