United States v. Valadez ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41006
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN ANTONIO VALADEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-293-1
--------------------
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Antonio Valadez appeals his sentence following a guilty
plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute
approximately 301.6 pounds of marijuana. Valadez argues that he
was erroneously denied a safety-valve reduction pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
The district court's determination whether § 5C1.2 applies
is a factual finding, which we review for clear error. United
States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 195 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995). A
factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41006
-2-
light of the record read as a whole. United States v. Watson,
966 F.2d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 1992).
The district judge did not find Valadez credible. Valadez
was examined by his own counsel and the district judge and was
cross-examined by the Government. The district judge "on the
balance" was unable to disagree with the Government and was
"troubled" by Valadez's testimony that he could not lead
authorities back to the warehouse where the marijuana was loaded.
Where essential fact findings turn on the finder of fact's
credibility determinations, we are loath to overturn such
findings under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. "``An
appellate court is in no position to weigh conflicting evidence
and inferences or to determine the credibility of witnesses; that
function is within the province of the finder of fact.'" United
States v. Samples, 897 F.2d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations
omitted). We cannot say the district court clearly erred.
AFFIRMED.