United States v. Sergio Contreras

597 F. App'x 265
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 13, 2015
Docket14-10585
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 597 F. App'x 265 (United States v. Sergio Contreras) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Sergio Contreras, 597 F. App'x 265 (5th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Sergio Contreras appeals the 60-month sentence imposed for his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He contends that the district court erred in denying him a safety-valve reduction.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963-64 (5th Cir.1999). We need not decide whether to apply plain error review because Contreras’s claim of error fails even under the ordinary standard of review.

A defendant may receive a two-level reduction in his offense level if he, inter alia, provides truthful information to the Government concerning the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(16) (2013), 501.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). Contrary to Contreras’s argument, Miller does not preclude us from concluding that Contreras’s untruthfulness about the source of cocaine in the instant offense independently justify the denial of the safety-valve reduction so long as there is evidence that Contreras lied. See Miller, 179 F.3d at 967-69. The district court’s finding that Contreras was not truthful was plausible in light of the record as a whole and not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir.2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

United States v. Angelo Holmes
694 F. App'x 933 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
597 F. App'x 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sergio-contreras-ca5-2015.