Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto CASTANEDA-SILVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-13
Citations: 258 F. App'x 691
Docket Number: No. 06-41618
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto CASTANEDA-SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto CASTANEDA-SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41618
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Oscar J. Pena, Sr., Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Castaneda-Silva (Castaneda) appeals the 10-year statutory minimum sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He contends that he was entitled to a safety-valve sentence below the statutory minimum because he truthfully provided the Government with information about the crime. See U.S.S.G. § 501.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
The district court did not commit clear error by finding that Castaneda made inconsistent statements to the Government about the number of smuggling trips he made and was thus not completely truthful in his disclosures to the Government. Castaneda failed to show that he was entitled to the safety valve reduction. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir.1995).
Castaneda also contends that he should have received a downward departure from the advisory sentencing range because he participated in the criminal activity under duress. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12. This contention is moot because Castaneda cannot avoid the statutory minimum sentence by way of the safety valve.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.