United States v. Rivas Camacho ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50503 Document: 00516714451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50503
FILED
April 17, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Maria Guadalupe Rivas Camacho,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-1276-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Maria Guadalupe Rivas Camacho was convicted after a jury trial of
one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of a substance or mixture containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine. Rivas Camacho was sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of 120 months to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. On
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50503 Document: 00516714451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2023
No. 22-50503
appeal, Rivas Camacho argues that the district court erred by denying her
requested jury instruction for mistake of fact. She further argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support her conviction because the Government
did not adequately corroborate her statements to law enforcement and did
not prove the alleged conspiracy. With respect to her sentence, Rivas
Camacho contends that the district court erred by failing to apply a safety-
valve reduction and by denying her request for a mitigating role reduction.
First, we review the refusal to issue a jury instruction for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Orfi-Nwosu, 549 F.3d 1005, 1008 (5th Cir. 2008).
The district court errs in rejecting a proposed instruction only if the
instruction was (1) substantially correct, (2) was not substantially covered in
the charge given to the jury, and (3) concerned an important issue in the trial
so that the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to
present a given defense. United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.
2002). When read in its entirety, the record shows that the requested
instruction on mistake of fact was substantially encompassed in the jury
charge. Accordingly, Rivas Camacho has not demonstrated that the district
court abused its discretion in refusing the proposed instruction. See Orfi-
Nwosu, 549 F.3d at 1008.
When viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, a reasonable jury could have found that the evidence
established Rivas Camacho’s knowledge and participation in the drug
conspiracy given her actions and the large quantity of methamphetamine
recovered from inside the house. See United States v. Barnes, 803 F.3d 209,
215 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Masha, 990 F.3d 436, 442–43 (5th Cir.
2021). The jury, hearing Rivas Camacho’s testimony and observing her
demeanor as well as hearing the testimony of the Government witnesses, was
entitled to evaluate and resolve whether her statements should be viewed as
believable. See United States v. Sanchez, 961 F.2d 1169, 1173 (5th Cir. 1992).
2
Case: 22-50503 Document: 00516714451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/17/2023
No. 22-50503
The record provides a valid basis for the district court’s decision not
to apply the safety-valve adjustment. United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678, 699-
700 (5th Cir. 2017). The burden was on Rivas Camacho to show that she
truthfully provided the Government with all relevant information and
evidence regarding the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v.
Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146–47 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court questioned
Rivas Camacho and reviewed the entirety of the record to make its own
finding that she was ineligible for safety-valve relief. Given the tenor of the
court’s questioning, it is apparent that the court did not believe Rivas
Camacho had been forthright. See United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 411
(5th Cir. 2013). Insofar as Rivas Camacho argues that the district court failed
to make sufficient findings to allow meaningful appellate review, there is no
indication that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a lesser
sentence. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Rivas Camacho has not shown she was entitled to a mitigating role re-
duction. First, the record does not show that she requested that the district
court articulate a factual basis for denying such a reduction, and, thus, she
has not shown that the district court plainly erred in that respect. See United
States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Puckett, 556
U.S. at 135. Next, the factors present a “mixed bag” and “support a plausi-
ble judgment in either direction.” Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d at 264–65. Thus,
the district court’s determination that Rivas Camacho was at least an average
participant in the conspiracy is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See
United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 2016).
AFFIRMED.
3