US v. Cristian Beltran

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00025-MR-DLH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999732312].. [14-4931]

Appeal: 14-4931

Doc: 48

Filed: 01/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRISTIAN NEVAREZ BELTRAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00025-MR-DLH-2)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

January 8, 2016

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP & WINTHROP, Statesville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4931

Doc: 48

Filed: 01/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Cristian Nevarez Beltran pleaded guilty to conspiring to
possess

with

intent

methamphetamine
(2012).

in

to

distribute

violation

of

grams

U.S.C.

21

50

§§

or

more

of

841(a)(1),

846

The district court sentenced Beltran to 87 months of

imprisonment, and he now appeals.

Appellate counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court clearly erred in refusing
to apply the sentencing safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
(2012)

and

in

concluding

that

Beltran

was

not

a

minor

participant under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b)
(2013).

Beltran was informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Finding no error,

we affirm.
We
valve

review

under

States v.

a

18

district
U.S.C.

Henry,

673

§

F.3d

court’s

application

3553(f)

for

285,

292

clear

(4th

of

the

error.

Cir.

safety
United

2012).

“This

standard of review permits reversal only if this Court is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.”
omitted).

Id.

(citation

and

internal

quotation

marks

In conducting such a review, we accord “the district

court’s credibility determinations great deference.”

Id.

The

burden of establishing entitlement to the safety valve provision

2

Appeal: 14-4931

Doc: 48

Filed: 01/08/2016

falls on the defendant.

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600,

605 (4th Cir. 2012).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply the
safety valve provision.

Given the great deference owed to its

credibility determination, we cannot conclude that the district
court erred in finding that Beltran was less than truthful with
investigators,
provision.

and

therefore

ineligible

for

the

safety

valve

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

We also review the application of USSG § 3B1.2 for clear
error.

United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.

2012).

To establish eligibility for a reduced offense level

under

Section

3B1.2,

“[t]he

defendant

bears

the

burden

of

proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled
to a mitigating role adjustment in sentencing.”

Id. at 358-59

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude

that the district court did not clearly err in finding that
Beltran’s conduct was material or essential to committing the
offense in question and, consequently, that he was not entitled
to a reduced offense level under Section 3B1.2.

See United

States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm Beltran’s conviction and sentence.
3

Appeal: 14-4931

Doc: 48

Filed: 01/08/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

This court requires that counsel inform Beltran, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Beltran requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Beltran.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4