United States v. Ruiz , 298 F. App'x 219 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VANESSA RUIZ, a/k/a Vanessa Cruz, a/k/a Cynthia Vanessa
Mendez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-
cr-00542-AMD-3)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: November 3, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, P.A., Elkridge,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Kwame J. Manley, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vanessa Ruiz pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Ruiz to
120 months’ imprisonment. Ruiz appeals, contending 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. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
(2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 5C1.2 (2006).
Finding no error, we affirm.
The safety valve requires a district court to impose a
sentence within the applicable guideline range without regard to
any statutory minimum sentence if a defendant meets five
requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The requirements are:
(1) the defendant has no more than one criminal history point,
(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of
violence or possess a firearm in connection with the offense,
(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily
injury, (4) the defendant was not an organizer or leader of
others in the offense, and (5) the defendant provided truthful
information to the government concerning the crime. Id. The
burden is on the defendant to prove that all five safety-valve
requirements have been met. United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91
2
F.3d 665, 669 (4th Cir. 1996). The district court’s
determination of whether a defendant satisfied the safety-valve
requirements is a question of fact reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Wilson, 114 F.3d 429, 432 (4th Cir. 1997).
Ruiz was assigned five criminal history points,
thereby removing her from eligibility under § 3553(f). Although
Ruiz alleges that her prior state court conviction for marijuana
possession was a part of the present federal conspiracy for
cocaine distribution, she has offered no evidence in support of
that allegation. Tellingly, Ruiz’s prior conviction occurred
several months before the present conspiracy began. Despite
Ruiz’s argument, then, that the state and federal convictions
were related because both involved “illegal” “Spanish speaking”
“Hispanics,” it is readily apparent that the convictions were
separated by time, drug type, and activity. Accordingly, the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Ruiz’s prior
state conviction was not part of the same course of conduct or
common scheme or plan as the federal conspiracy. See USSG
§ 1B1.3(a)(2). Because the court’s denial of the safety-valve
reduction below the statutory minimum on this basis was proper,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4