United States v. Ibarra-Arzate ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50477 Document: 00516983105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50477
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 29, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Isidoro Ibarra-Arzate,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:21-CR-40-1
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Isidoro Ibarra-Arzate appeals the concurrent 70-month terms of
imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing methamphetamine and for possession with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50477 Document: 00516983105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-50477
methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred by finding that he
was not eligible for relief under the “safety valve” provisions of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f). Specifically, he argues that the word “and” in § 3553(f)(1) should
be interpreted to mean that a defendant is ineligible for safety-valve relief
only if all three disqualifying conditions apply. In his case, he asserts that he
only has one of the three disqualifying conditions.
Ibarra-Arzate concedes that his argument currently is foreclosed by
our decision in United States v. Palomares, 52 F. 4th 640, 643-45 (5th Cir.
2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-6391), but he notes
that the Supreme Court is currently considering the same issue in another
case. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance, or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. The
Government correctly asserts that the issue is foreclosed by Palomares. In
Palomares, we used a “distributive approach” to interpret § 3553(f)(1) and
concluded that criminal defendants are “ineligible for safety-valve relief
under § 3553(f)(1) if they run afoul of any one of its requirements.”
Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647. Because the Government’s position “is clearly
right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
2