United States v. Plasimond

102 F. App'x 283

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2004
• Docket: 03-4629
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Magueste Plasimond pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). The district court sentenced Plasimond to a total imprisonment term of 168 months, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Plasimond contends that the district court erred in failing to apply a two-level sentence reduction under the safety valve provision of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §§ 2D1.1(b)(6), 5C1.2 (1998). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

To qualify for sentencing under the safety valve provision, a defendant must meet all five criteria set out in USSG § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). A defendant who meets these criteria may be sentenced within the guideline range without regard to any statutory minimum sentence. He may also receive a two-level reduction if the offense level is level 26 or greater. Plasimond’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”) did not recommend a two-level sentence reduction, and Plasimond failed to object in the district court to the PSR’s calculation of his offense level. Therefore, his claim is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Because the record shows that Plasimond failed to truthfully provide all information to the Government concerning his drug offenses prior to sentencing, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in failing to apply a two-level sentence reduction under the safety valve provision. See United States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1146 (4th Cir.1996).

Accordingly, we affirm Plasimond’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED