Court Opinion

ID: 9909780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 01:00:35.963528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:44.412932
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10161        Document: 00517000303             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10161
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              December 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Reynaldo Avila-Gonzalez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-254-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Reynaldo Avila-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
   intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of
   21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841. At sentencing, the district court found Avila was
   ineligible for a two-level safety-valve reduction under Sentencing Guideline
   § 2D1.1(b)(18) (requiring defendant to meet five criteria) because he did not

          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10161      Document: 00517000303            Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                      No. 23-10161

   provide the Government with a complete account of his offense and relevant
   conduct as required by Guideline § 5C1.2(a)(5) (outlining fifth criterion).
          Avila contends: the court clearly erred in finding he had not satisfied
   the safety-valve criteria based exclusively on the presentence investigation
   report. He maintains it repeated the prosecutor’s conclusory assertion that
   Avila had not truthfully provided all the information he had about the offense.
   Avila contends the record does not support the repeated assertion.
          Although post-Booker, the 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, as in this instance, 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).
          Regarding the sole presented issue—the claimed procedural error for
   denial of the safety-valve reduction—the denial is reviewed for clear error.
   United States v. McCrimmon, 443 F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 2006). The record
   supports the denial because Avila failed to meet his burden of establishing he
   provided a truthful and complete account of his offense before sentencing,
   and he likewise did not do so at sentencing. See United States v. Flanagan, 80
   F.3d 143, 146–47 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting defendant’s burden to ensure “he
   has provided all the information and evidence regarding the offense to the
   Government”).
          The case agent testified at sentencing that: Avila’s account of the
   events was incomplete; his answers to questions were evasive; and he failed

                                           2
Case: 23-10161     Document: 00517000303          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                   No. 23-10161

   to provide specific locations or names known to him. In particular, Avila did
   not state with certainty the name of his cousin who purportedly introduced
   him to his source of supply. In the Agent’s experience, this information was
   almost always known to defendants. The Agent’s testimony was specific, not
   based on pure speculation, and sufficient to support the district court’s
   finding. See United States v. Lima-Rivero, 971 F.3d 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (requiring “more than ‘speculation’ or ‘mere conjecture’”); United States v.
   McCrimmon, 443 F.3d 454, 457–58 (5th Cir. 2006) (concluding district court
   did not clearly err in finding defendant had been “less than truthful” where
   Government’s narcotic agent testified at resentencing defendant was evasive
   at interview and offered inconsistent information).
         Further, Avila does not affirmatively assert he provided a complete
   and truthful account of all information known to him regarding the offense,
   and he did not: offer any evidence to counter the Government’s not
   recommending safety-valve credit; or call any witnesses at sentencing. See
   United States v. Cruz-Romero, 848 F.3d 399, 402 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (“[Defendant] did not dispute, or offer any evidence to contradict, the
   government’s claim that he had failed to provide all relevant information
   known to him”.).
         AFFIRMED.

                                         3