United States v. Molina , 272 F. App'x 268 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE MANUEL MOLINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-0122-JAB)
Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anna Aita, LAW OFFICES OF AITA & MURPHY, Glen Burnie, Maryland, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J.
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Molina pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)
and 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Molina to the
statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment, and Molina
timely appealed. Molina contends on appeal that the district
court’s imposition of the statutory minimum sentence was improper
because the court erroneously denied a sentencing reduction under
the “safety valve” provision.* See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1335(f) (West
2000 & Supp. 2007); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 5C1.2 (2005). We affirm.
A defendant is eligible for an offense level reduction
and a sentence below an otherwise applicable statutory minimum if
he meets all five requirements set forth in the applicable statute.
See United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 667 (4th Cir.
1996). After permitting Molina to testify at the sentencing
hearing as a verbal proffer of all information and evidence
concerning his offenses, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3353(f)(5) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2007); USSG § 5C1.2(a)(5), the court found portions of
Molina’s testimony were untruthful. We conclude this finding was
not clearly erroneous and the denial of a safety valve reduction
below the statutory minimum on this basis was proper.
*
Molina does not contest his conviction on appeal.
2
Accordingly, we affirm Molina’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3