Court Opinion

ID: 999463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:26:12.109015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:23.882912
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                        No. 98-4678
CARLOS RENE VILLANUEVA, a/k/a
Carlos Villanueva,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-97-247)

Submitted: April 27, 1999

Decided: August 20, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mark Patrick Foster, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, D. Scott Broyles, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Rene Villanueva was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute mari-
juana. On appeal, he alleges that the district court clearly erred in its
calculation of the amount of drugs attributable to him, by enhancing
his base offense level for possession of firearms pursuant to USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(1),1 and by refusing to apply the "safety valve" provision
found in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(f) (West Supp. 1998) and USSG § 5C1.2.2
Finding no error, we affirm.

Villanueva was part of large drug conspiracy which operated in
Gaston County, North Carolina. During a search of Villanueva's resi-
dence following his arrest, police seized three firearms and records of
drug transactions. In addition, several co-conspirators provided state-
ments to police in which they described Villanueva's drug activities.

We review the district court's factual determination concerning the
amount of drugs attributable to Villanueva for clear error and find
none here. See United States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir.
1996). One of the investigating officers testified that, based on inter-
views with Villanueva and several co-conspirators, Villanueva was
personally responsible for the distribution of over 2000 kilograms of
marijuana. Villanueva's primary argument at sentencing (and now on
appeal) was that the statements of his co-conspirators were not credi-
ble or reliable. The district court resolved this issue against Villa-
nueva, and we find nothing in the record which would justify
overturning the court's factual findings. See United States v. D'Anjou,
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998).
2 The "safety valve" allows a sentencing court to impose a sentence in
accordance with the applicable Guidelines range, regardless of any statu-
tory minimum sentence, if the defendant satisfies certain criteria.

                    2
16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994) (district court's credibility determi-
nations are entitled to great deference). As a result, we find that Villa-
nueva failed to meet his burden of showing that the information in the
presentence report was inaccurate. See United States v. Terry, 916
F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990) (mere objections are insufficient).

The Government need only prove by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that the firearms enhancement is applicable, and the district
court's factual determinations must be upheld unless they are clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Urrego-Linares , 879 F.2d 1234, 1237-
38 (4th Cir. 1989). In addition, "[t]he adjustment should be applied
if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the
weapon was connected with the offense." USSG§ 2D1.1, comment.
(n.3). In the present case, we find that the district court properly
applied the enhancement. Firearms were found in Villanueva's resi-
dence where he smoked marijuana and where he was arrested. When
demanding their return, he referred to them as his guns. And his
efforts to explain them were inconsistent and implausible. Given the
large amount of drugs handled by Villanueva, it is certainly probable
that he would want to have firearms available if needed. Moreover,
although Villanueva testified that only one weapon belonged to him,
which he claimed he used for hunting, the district court found that his
testimony was internally inconsistent and incredible. Because the evi-
dence supports the district court's finding that Villanueva possessed
firearms in connection with a drug trafficking offense, he was not eli-
gible for sentencing under the "safety valve" provision. See 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(f)(2); USSG § 5C1.2.

We therefore affirm Villanueva's conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3