United States v. Ofelia Rodriguez-Ornelas , 456 F. App'x 228 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OFELIA RODRIGUEZ-ORNELAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:10-cr-00991-JMC-1)
Submitted: November 7, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ofelia Rodriguez-Ornelas pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006). The district court
sentenced Rodriguez-Ornelas to the statutory mandatory minimum
of 120 months’ imprisonment, and she now appeals. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Rodriguez-Ornelas argues that the district
court erred in determining that she was ineligible for
application of the safety valve provision under the Sentencing
Guidelines. In reviewing the district court’s calculations
under the Guidelines, “we review the district court's legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will “find
clear error only if, on the entire evidence, [we are] left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
To qualify for the safety valve provision and a
sentence below the statutorily required mandatory minimum, the
defendant must establish that (1) he does not have more than one
criminal history point; (2) he did not use violence or possess a
firearm in connection with the offense; (3) the offense did not
2
result in death or serious bodily injury; (4) he was not an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the
offense; and (5) no later than the time of sentencing, he
truthfully provided the government with all evidence and
information he had concerning the offense or offenses that were
part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or
plan. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5C1.2 (2010). The defendant bears the burden of
proving that all five safety valve requirements have been met.
United States v. Beltran–Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 669 (4th Cir.
1996). The requirement that the defendant truthfully provide
all information concerning the offense to the government
“obligates defendants to demonstrate, through affirmative
conduct, that they have supplied truthful information to the
Government.” United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 185 (4th
Cir. 1996).
The district court determined that Rodriguez-Ornelas
failed to provide truthful information to the Government
regarding the offense. Having reviewed the record, we conclude
that this finding was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4