IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51172

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALVARO ARREOLA-ESCALANTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1647-1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alvaro Arreola-Escalante appeals the 92-month sentence imposed for his 

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 

kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 

kilograms of marijuana. He contends that the district court erred in refusing 

to grant him safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). 

 

* 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

July 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51172 Document: 00513112792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
No. 14-51172

2

Arreola-Escalante argues that he satisfied the criteria to receive the reduction 

and, specifically, truthfully provided all required information and evidence.

A defendant may receive a two-level reduction in his offense level if he, 

inter alia, truthfully provides to the Government all information and evidence 

that he has about the offense of conviction or offenses that were part of the 

same course of conduct or a common scheme or plan. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16) 

(2013); § 5C1.2(a)(5); § 3553(f)(5). The refusal of the district court to apply 

safety-valve relief based on a finding that a defendant has not truthfully 

provided all relevant information is a factual finding that typically is reviewed 

for clear error. See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 345 (5th Cir. 2011). 

However, because Arreola-Escalante did not object in the district court to the 

denial of safety-valve relief, our review is for plain error only. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). We need not 

determine whether the instant issue involves a question of fact that may never

constitute plain error, see United States v. Claiborne, 676 F.3d 434, 438 (5th 

Cir. 2012), because Arreola-Escalante’s claim is otherwise without merit.

The record supports that Arreola-Escalante was previously involved in a

conspiracy to transport marijuana that included the same participants as the 

instant offense and that he was connected to a drug trafficking organization. 

However, he did not disclose any information about his involvement in the

prior conspiracy or the drug trafficking organization. Further, he does not now 

assert unequivocally that he was entirely truthful or identify evidence that he 

could present to show that he was totally forthcoming in his disclosures; he 

instead sets forth reasons for why he did not, or was unable to, provide all of

the information that he possessed. His alleged excuses – i.e., the Government 

already knew about the drug trafficking organization, he provided statements 

in which he admitted his role in the instant offense, and he has mental and 

 Case: 14-51172 Document: 00513112792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
No. 14-51172

3

physical limitations that affect his memory – do not justify his refusal to reveal 

all information about other events that were part of the same course of conduct 

or a common scheme or plan. See § 5C1.2; § 3553(f). Thus, Arreola-Escalante 

has not shown that he truthfully provided all information to the Government 

and, thus, he has not shown that the district court erred in denying safetyvalve relief. See United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996); 

§ 5C1.2(a)(5); § 3553(f)(5).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 14-51172 Document: 00513112792 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2015