Court Opinion

ID: 9910609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 01:00:44.239964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:31.393253
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51118         Document: 00517003820             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-51118
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Federico Juarez, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 7:22-CR-81-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Federico Juarez, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty
   plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or
   more of actual methamphetamine. He challenges the finding that his offense
   involved more than 500 but less than 1.5 kilograms of actual
   methamphetamine, resulting in a base offense level of 34. He further appeals
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51118      Document: 00517003820           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                     No. 22-51118

   the district court’s denial of relief under the safety-valve provisions of 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18).
          The district court’s drug quantity calculation is a factual
   determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d
   757, 761 (5th Cir. 2019). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is
   plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).
          The district court’s drug quantity determination was based upon
   reliable information contained in a lab report referenced in the PSR
   Addendum and photographic evidence presented at sentencing. Further,
   Juarez did not offer competent rebuttal evidence. See United States v. Parker,
   133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s determination that
   Juarez’s offense involved more than 500 but less than 1.5 kilograms of actual
   methamphetamine is plausible in light of the record as a whole. Thus, Juarez
   has failed to show clear error. See Barfield, 941 F.3d at 761.
          We review the district court’s decision whether to apply U.S.S.G.
   § 5C1.2 for clear error. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir.
   1996). Juarez had the burden of establishing eligibility for safety-valve relief,
   including the burden of showing that he truthfully provided the Government
   with all relevant information and evidence regarding the offense. Flanagan,
   80 F.3d at 146-47. In deciding not to apply the safety-valve, the district court
   stated that it considered the information before the court in making its
   determination. The record shows that the information Juarez provided
   during his debrief contradicted information known to investigating officers.
   Therefore, the district court’s determination that Juarez failed to satisfy the
   safety-valve provision is not clearly erroneous. See Barfield, 941 F.3d at 761.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2