United States v. Gonzalez

161 F. App'x 183
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 24, 2006
DocketNo. 05-2433
StatusPublished

This text of 161 F. App'x 183 (United States v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Gonzalez, 161 F. App'x 183 (2d Cir. 2006).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant William Gonzalez appeals from a May 5, 2005 judgment of the District Court adjudging him, pursuant to his September 14, 2004 plea of guilty, guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine and heroin into the United States, 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 952, 960, conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841, and conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute Ecstacy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841. The District Court sentenced Gonzalez principally to one hundred twenty months’ imprisonment upon a finding that Gonzalez’s crimes triggered a mandatory ten-year minimum sentence1 and that Gonzalez was ineligible for a “safety valve” provision exempting certain offenders from the mandatory minimum.2

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

An offender has the burden of proving his eligibility for the “safety valve.” See United States v. Tang, 214 F.3d 365, 371 (2d Cir.2000). The District Court’s findings of fact concerning whether a defendant “truthfully provided” the requisite information is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 882, 883 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5)).

Here, the District Court’s finding that Gonzalez was untruthful when describing his role in the offense as a small one and denying allegations of prior drug activity has ample support in the record. Because the District Court did not err, much less clearly err, we do not disturb the sentence imposed.

^ 3c &

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Pedro Ortiz
136 F.3d 882 (Second Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Angel Tang
214 F.3d 365 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. App'x 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gonzalez-ca2-2006.