United States v. Olguin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2003
• Docket: 02-40904
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-40904 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REYNALDO OLGUIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CR-56-2 --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Olguin appeals from his sentence for conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Olguin argues that (1) the

district court erred in denying him a downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility and (2) the district court erred in

sentencing him to four years of supervised release.

In light of Olguin’s failure to meet with a probation

officer, failure to surrender, and provision of a false name to

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 02-40904 -2-

police officers, his case does not qualify as an extraordinary

situation warranting adjustments for both obstruction of justice

and acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Chapa-

Garza, 62 F.3d 118, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.

McDonald, 964 F.2d 390, 391 (5th Cir. 1992).

Despite Olguin’s assertion to the contrary, the record shows

that the district court expressly recognized that the statutory

minimum sentence of four years of supervised release did not

apply to him, because he qualified for a safety-valve reduction.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2, comment. (n.2).

Olguin’s sentence of four years of supervised release falls

within the guideline range, U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(1), and he has

demonstrated no error, plain or otherwise. See United States v.

Kelly, 974 F.2d 22, 24 (5th Cir. 1992).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.