USA v. Cynthia Marroquin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50250 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 04/27/2011 for Appellant Cynthia Reyes Marroquin [10-50250]

Case: 10-50250 Document: 00511436823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 10-50250
Summary Calendar

April 6, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CYNTHIA REYES MARROQUIN,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:08-CR-391-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cynthia Reyes Marroquin appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed
for her conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine and her concurrent 60-month sentences
imposed for her convictions of two counts of aiding and abetting the possession
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. She argues that the
district court clearly erred by finding that she had not met her burden of
showing that she qualified for a safety valve adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.

Case: 10-50250 Document: 00511436823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2011
No. 10-50250
§ 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. See United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 14547 (5th Cir. 1996).
Setting aside that Marroquin cites no authority holding that the
Government was bound by representations made during plea negotiations when
no plea agreement was ever reached, her argument that the Government had
agreed prior to trial that the safety valve adjustment was warranted ignores
that the applicability of the adjustment was a matter for the district court to
decide and was not subject to the Government’s discretion. See § 5C1.2(a)
(noting that the district court shall grant a safety valve adjustment “if the court
finds” that the defendant satisfies the applicable criteria). Contrary to her
assertion, the denial of the adjustment was not premised solely upon the
credibility determinations of the interviewing detective; rather, the district court
determined, based upon evidence adduced during trial and at sentencing, that
Marroquin had not truthfully provided all information and evidence known to
her during her pretrial debriefing. See § 3553(f)(5); § 5C1.2(a)(5). This court has
rejected the proposition that a defendant whose sentencing hearing has
commenced may cure her failure to fully debrief for safety valve purposes by
doing so during a suspension of the proceedings. See United States v. Brenes,
250 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.

2