United States v. Abel Sanchez-Rocha , 208 F. App'x 503 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-3455
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Abel Sanchez-Rocha, also known as       *
    Felice Rodriguez, Jr., also known as    *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    Feliciano Rodriguez,                    *
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 27, 2006
    Filed: December 7, 2006
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Abel Sanchez-Rocha appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more
    than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. Rocha contends the court erred in finding he was
    ineligible for safety-valve relief.
    1
    The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    To receive the safety-valve reduction, Rocha had “to show, through affirmative
    conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the
    relevant crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo, 
    81 F.3d 84
    , 85-86
    (8th Cir. 1996). We review for clear error the district court’s finding that Rocha did
    not satisfy his burden. See United States v. Weekly, 
    118 F.3d 576
    , 581 (8th Cir.),
    modified on other grounds, 
    128 F.3d 1198
    (8th Cir. 1997).
    Upon careful review of the record before us on appeal, we cannot say that the
    district court clearly erred in finding that Rocha gave inconsistent answers about his
    drug sources and avoided some of the government’s proffer-interview questions.
    Rocha complains that the court considered only the letters from the prosecutor and the
    arguments at the sentencing hearing, but the district court also had before it a letter
    from defense counsel after the first proffer about Rocha’s refreshed recollection, as
    well as Rocha’s sentencing testimony during which he was unable to remember
    details about one of his proffer interviews, was evasive, and disclaimed knowledge
    about the cost of the methamphetamine he had bought and about the contact
    information for his drug source or sources. See 
    Romo, 81 F.3d at 85
    (defendant was
    required to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement in crime and
    his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of others).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3455

Citation Numbers: 208 F. App'x 503

Judges: Murphy, Bye, Melloy

Filed Date: 12/7/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024