United States v. Gonzalez-Compean , 179 F. App'x 904 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                         May 11, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-50514
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RUDOLFO GONZALEZ-COMPEAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:05-CR-25-2
    --------------------
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Rudolfo Gonzalez-Compean (Gonzalez) appeals his guilty-plea
    conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession with
    intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
    Gonzalez contends that the district court clearly erred in
    denying him a safety-valve reduction because he made a timely and
    complete    disclosure    of    all     relevant   facts   surrounding      the
    commission of the offenses charged.            According to Gonzalez, his
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    subsequent inconsistent statements do not undo the fact that he
    made a complete disclosure at the time of his arrest and, thus, the
    Government had the full benefit of the information he provided to
    aid in its further investigation of the criminal scheme in which he
    participated.
    Gonzalez has failed to show that he truthfully provided the
    Government with all information and evidence regarding the instant
    offenses.      See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5);
    United States v. Flanagan, 
    80 F.3d 143
    , 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996).      At
    the time of his arrest, Gonzalez admitted that he had transported
    marijuana into the United States twice before.       He then recanted
    this statement and denied ever having transported marijuana into
    the   United    States.    Gonzalez   maintained   this   position   at
    sentencing, but, after conferring with counsel, asserted that he
    had transported marijuana into the United States once before and
    that the agents simply misinterpreted what he said during the post-
    arrest interview.     Gonzalez’s inconsistent statements call into
    question his truthfulness. Therefore, the district court’s factual
    finding that Gonzalez was not entitled to a safety-valve reduction
    is plausible in light of the record as a whole, and the district
    court did not clearly err in denying Gonzalez a safety-valve
    reduction.     See United States v. Edwards, 
    65 F.3d 430
    , 433 (5th
    Cir. 1995) (denying application of § 5C1.2 because the defendant
    provided conflicting accounts of the offense).
    Gonzalez also contends that the district court erred when it
    2
    denied his request to continue the sentencing hearing to afford him
    an opportunity to amend and explain his safety-valve statement.
    Gonzalez has failed to show that the district court abused its
    discretion in denying his request to continue the sentencing
    hearing or that he suffered prejudice as a result of the district
    court’s denial.   See United States v. Peden, 
    891 F.2d 514
    , 519 (5th
    Cir. 1989).
    Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-50514

Citation Numbers: 179 F. App'x 904

Judges: Garza, Jones, Per Curiam, Smith

Filed Date: 5/11/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023