United States v. Trinidad-Renovato , 91 F. App'x 350 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 25, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41224
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS TRINIDAD-RENOVATO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-03-CR-83-1
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41224
- 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(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.