Court Opinion

ID: 9909218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 19:01:04.131568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:19.828279
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50217         Document: 00516997887             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50217
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 12, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Cesar Ortega,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-1964-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Cesar Ortega pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
   distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
   (conspiracy), 841 (prohibiting possession with intent to distribute cocaine).
   He received a within-Guidelines 120-months’ imprisonment sentence, the
   statutorily-imposed mandatory minimum. Ortega challenges the district

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50217      Document: 00516997887           Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-50217

   court’s denial of a safety-valve adjustment, including its claimed failure to
   make specific findings on why it denied the adjustment.
          Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
   the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
   calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
   objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
   Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
   preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
   novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          The court denied the adjustment because it found Ortega’s safety-
   valve statement untruthful and incomplete. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5)
   (permitting safety-valve adjustment if, inter alia, “defendant has truthfully
   provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has
   concerning the offense”); Guideline § 5C1.2(a)(5) (same); Guideline §
   2D1.1(b)(18) (decreasing by two levels if safety-valve applies). At sentencing,
   the court identified specific falsehoods in Ortega’s written safety-valve
   statement. See United States v. Lima-Rivero, 971 F.3d 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (requiring “that evidence more than ‘speculation’ or ‘mere conjecture’ is
   presented” (citation omitted)). Those findings are plausible in the light of
   the record as a whole and, therefore, not clearly erroneous. Id. at 520
   (outlining clear-error review); United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146–47
   (5th Cir. 1996) (placing burden of establishing safety-valve eligibility on
   defendant).
          Accordingly, it is not necessary to address the district court’s separate
   ruling on the timeliness of Ortega’s statement. See United States v. Roussel,

                                           2
Case: 23-50217    Document: 00516997887          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                  No. 23-50217

   705 F.3d 184, 195 (5th Cir. 2013) (“We may affirm the district court’s
   judgment on any basis supported by the record.”).
         AFFIRMED.

                                       3