Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis GUZMAN-REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 03-51199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis GUZMAN-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 758–758

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis GUZMAN-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-51199.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth Allan Krohn, Law Offices of Kenneth A. Krohn, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luis Guzman-Reyes (Guzman) appeals his sentence from a guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846. Guzman argues that the district court committed clear error by failing to grant him a downward departure based upon § 5C1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
This court reviews a district court's refusal to apply the safety-valve provision, based on factual findings, for clear error. See United States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir.2005). The district court denied Guzman a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 based upon Guzman's inconsistent answers over the course of numerous interviews with federal agents. The record supports the district court's finding that Guzman was ineligible for a sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5). See Ridgeway, 321 F.3d at 516; see also Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d at 753.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.