United States v. Serna ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   June 24, 2003
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-40957
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    LEOPOLDO H. SERNA, III
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. L-02-CR-19-ALL
    --------------------
    Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Leopoldo H. Serna, III, appeals his sentence following
    pleading guilty to possession of over 100 kilograms of marijuana,
    in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(B).   He argues that
    the district court erroneously denied him a sentence reduction
    under the Sentencing Guidelines’ safety valve provision, U.S.S.G.
    § 5C1.2.   We review a sentencing court’s refusal to apply the
    safety valve provision for clear error.    United States
    v. Rodriguez, 
    60 F.3d 193
    , 195 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995).
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40957
    -2-
    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.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).   We are usually reluctant to disturb a
    district court’s credibility determinations and see no reason to
    do so in the case at hand.    See United States v. Ridgeway, 
    321 F.3d 512
    , 516 (5th Cir. 2003).    Serna’s story was both vague and
    incredible.   After reviewing the record, we are convinced that
    the district court did not clearly err when it denied Serna the
    reduction afforded by the safety valve.     Its judgment is
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-40957

Filed Date: 6/24/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021