United States v. Alvarez ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-1292
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Wenceslao Machado Alvarez,                *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 6, 2000
    Filed: June 16, 2000
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Wenceslao Machado Alvarez appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion
    for safety-valve relief under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (1998).
    Alvarez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
    methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), after
    surveillance officers videotaped him taking part in three drug transactions. An officer
    testified at sentencing that Alvarez claimed in his “proffer” interview that he had never
    1
    The HONORABLE JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, United States District Judge
    for the District of Minnesota.
    been involved in drug dealing other than on those three occasions; the officer then
    explained why he considered that claim untruthful. Noting the improbability of
    Alvarez’s claim, the district court credited the officer’s disbelief and determined that
    Alvarez had not truthfully provided all the information he had concerning the offense,
    as required under section 5C1.2(5). The court sentenced Alvarez to 120 months
    imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Alvarez now argues that the district
    court clearly erred in discrediting his statements regarding his drug involvement and
    denying safety-valve relief.
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not
    clearly err in finding that Alvarez did not meet his burden under section 5C1.2(5). See
    United States v. Velasquez, 
    141 F.3d 1280
    , 1283 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    525 U.S. 897
    (1998); United States v. Romo, 
    81 F.3d 84
    , 85-96 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we
    affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1292

Filed Date: 6/16/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021