United States v. Alejandro Cisnero Castaneda, Also Known as Gerardo Onofre-Martinez

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Alejandro Cisnero Castaneda, Also Known as Gerardo Onofre-Martinez

221 F.3d 1058, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19059, 2000 WL 1121483

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 2000

Docket00-1955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 221 F.3d 1058 (United States v. Alejandro Cisnero Castaneda, Also Known as Gerardo Onofre-Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alejandro Cisnero Castaneda, Also Known as Gerardo Onofre-Martinez, 221 F.3d 1058, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19059, 2000 WL 1121483 (8th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Castaneda pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine and heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to sixty months imprisonment and five years supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the district court 1 erred in denying him a two-level “safety-valve” reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(6) (1998), based upon the finding that he had not been fully truthful in his statements to the government about the extent of his involvement in the conspiracy.

To qualify for a reduction under section 2Dl.l(b)(6), “a defendant carries the burden of demonstrating that ‘he has truthfully provided to the Government all information regarding the relevant crime before sentencing.’ ” See United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.1998) (quoted source omitted). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that, as the government contended, Castaneda had not been fully truthful. See United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review). The government’s position was supported by the unobjected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR), see United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where, although defendant provided limited information about his crime to government, PSR indicated that he had not been fully truthful), and Castaneda did not introduce any evidence in support of his position, cf. United States v. Rios, 171 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir.1999) (no plain error for district court to deny safety-valve relief when government contended at sentencing that defendant had not been truthful, and defendant failed to produce evidence showing that he had been).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Castaneda pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine and heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to sixty months imprisonment and five years supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the district court 1 erred in denying him a two-level “safety-valve” reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(6) (1998), based upon the finding that he had not been fully truthful in his statements to the government about the extent of his involvement in the conspiracy.

To qualify for a reduction under section 2Dl.l(b)(6), “a defendant carries the burden of demonstrating that ‘he has truthfully provided to the Government all information regarding the relevant crime before sentencing.’ ” See United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.1998) (quoted source omitted). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that, as the government contended, Castaneda had not been fully truthful. See United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review). The government’s position was supported by the unobjected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR), see United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where, although defendant provided limited information about his crime to government, PSR indicated that he had not been fully truthful), and Castaneda did not introduce any evidence in support of his position, cf. United States v. Rios, 171 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir.1999) (no plain error for district court to deny safety-valve relief when government contended at sentencing that defendant had not been truthful, and defendant failed to produce evidence showing that he had been).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 F.3d 1058, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19059, 2000 WL 1121483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alejandro-cisnero-castaneda-also-known-as-gerardo-ca8-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack