Court Opinion

ID: 9392480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:28.644126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.108446
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40094         Document: 00516739041             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                      May 4, 2023
                                       No. 22-40094                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Casey Olvera,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:17-CR-988-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Casey Olvera appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his
   guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
   Olvera argues that the district court erred by determining that he was
   ineligible for relief under the safety-valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). In
   particular, he asserts that the word “and” in § 3553(f)(1) should be

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40094      Document: 00516739041           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                     No. 22-40094

   interpreted to mean that a defendant is ineligible for safety-valve relief only
   if all three disqualifying conditions apply and, based on that interpretation,
   that he is eligible for relief because he did not have more than four criminal
   history points or a prior two-point violent offense under § 3553(f)(1)(A) and
   (C).
          The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
   affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. The
   Government correctly asserts that the issue is foreclosed by United States v.
   Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 21,
   2022) (No. 22-6391), which was decided while this appeal was pending. In
   Palomares, the majority panel used a “distributive approach” to interpret
   § 3553(f)(1) and concluded that criminal defendants are “ineligible for safety
   valve relief [under § 3553(f)(1)] if they run afoul of any one of its
   requirements.” Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647. Because the Government’s
   position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
   question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406
   F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.
          Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
   GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
   Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as
   unnecessary.

                                              2