USA v. Sergio Contrera

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10585 Affirmed ] Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 04/03/2015 for Appellant Sergio Contreras [14-10585]

Case: 14-10585

Document: 00512968406

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/13/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-10585
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 13, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
SERGIO CONTRERAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CR-266-1
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Sergio Contreras appeals the 60-month sentence imposed for his
conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine.
He contends that the district court erred in denying him a safety-valve
reduction.
We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963-64 (5th Cir.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10585

Document: 00512968406

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/13/2015

No. 14-10585
1999).

We need not decide whether to apply plain error review because

Contreras’s claim of error fails even under the ordinary standard of review.
A defendant may receive a two-level reduction in his offense level if he,
inter alia, provides truthful information to the Government concerning the
offense of conviction.

See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(16) (2013), 5C1.2(a)(5);

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). Contrary to Contreras’s argument, Miller does not
preclude us from concluding that Contreras’s untruthfulness about the source
of cocaine in the instant offense independently justify the denial of the safetyvalve reduction so long as there is evidence that Contreras lied. See Miller,
179 F.3d at 967-69. The district court’s finding that Contreras was not truthful
was plausible in light of the record as a whole and not clearly erroneous. See
United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 2010).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2