Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-02
Citations: 215 F. App'x 365
Docket Number: No. 05-41595
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41595.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 2, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Oscar O. Pena, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Angel Madrigal pleaded guilty to one count of possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He now appeals the district court's denial of a so-called safety valve reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Finding no error, we affirm.
Of the five criteria for a § 5C1.2 adjustment, the only one at issue here is the requirement that the defendant has truthfully provided the Government with all information and evidence he has concerning the offense. We review the district court's factual finding that Madrigal did not truthfully debrief for clear error. See United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963-64 (5th Cir.1999).
Contrary to Madrigal's assertions, the district court's conclusion was not based on unsubstantiated speculation. Rather, the district court heard directly from Madrigal and concluded that his story that a stranger sought him out randomly to transport a large and valuable load of marijuana for $10,000 was not plausible. The district court's credibility determination, entitled to great deference, was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 753 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 968 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Salinas-Capistran, 133 Fed. App'x 112, 113-14 (5th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.