Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Quenida ANDELIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-16
Citations: 470 F. App'x 26
Docket Number: No. 11-2428-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Quenida ANDELIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 26–27

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Quenida ANDELIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-2428-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 16, 2012.
David T. Huang, Sandra S. Glover, United States Attorney’s Office, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
Francis L. O’Reilly, O’Reilly & Shaw LLC, Southport, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, RAYMOND J. LOHIER JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Quenida Andeliz appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, C.J.), which, among other things, sentenced her to the statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months' incarceration for her participation in a cocaine distribution conspiracy. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Andeliz claims that the district court erred in finding her ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3558(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Specifically, Andeliz takes issue with the district court's determination that she had not satisfied the fifth criterion of § 3553(f), which requires the defendant to prove to the district court that she has provided "all information and evidence [she] has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) (emphasis added); United States v. Gambino, 106 F.3d 1105, 1110 (2d Cir.1997).
We review a district court's factual findings regarding a defendant's eligibility for safety valve relief for clear error, and we review any legal interpretations of the safety valve provisions de novo. See United States v. Jeffers, 329 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir.2003). Here, the district court did not err in determining that Andeliz was not eligible for relief under the safety valve provisions. It is clear from the record that inconsistencies in Andeliz's testimony with regard to her involvement with the drug conspiracy in question demonstrated to the court that Andeliz was not sufficiently forthright about her role in that conspiracy to warrant safety valve relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.