United States v. Trinidad-Renovato

91 F. App'x 350
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2004
Docket03-41224
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 F. App'x 350 (United States v. Trinidad-Renovato) 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. Trinidad-Renovato, 91 F. App'x 350 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Trinidad-Renovato (“Trinidad”) appeals the 64-month sentence that was imposed following entry of his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately three kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Trinidad argues that the district court erroneously denied him a sentence reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines’ safety valve provision, U.S.C.G. 5C1.2.

We review the decision to deny the application of U.S.C.G. § 5C1.2 for clear error. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1996). The safety valve provision, in pertinent part, requires that a defendant, at or before sentencing, provide the Government with all the information and evidence he has concerning his offense. U.S.C.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).

We ordinarily do not disturb a district court’s credibility determinations and see no reason to do so in the instant case. See United States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir.2003). After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the district court did not clearly err when it denied Trinidad the reduction afforded by the safety valve provision. See Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 145.

Trinidad also challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and (b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Trinidad concedes, his Apprendi argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Trinidad-Renovato v. United States
543 U.S. 868 (Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 F. App'x 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-trinidad-renovato-ca5-2004.