Filed: May 11, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50514 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RUDOLFO GONZALEZ-COMPEAN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-25-2 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rudolfo Gonzalez-Compean (Gonz
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50514 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RUDOLFO GONZALEZ-COMPEAN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-25-2 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rudolfo Gonzalez-Compean (Gonza..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50514
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUDOLFO GONZALEZ-COMPEAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-25-2
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rudolfo Gonzalez-Compean (Gonzalez) appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession with
intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
Gonzalez contends that the district court clearly erred in
denying him a safety-valve reduction because he made a timely and
complete disclosure of all relevant facts surrounding the
commission of the offenses charged. According to Gonzalez, his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
subsequent inconsistent statements do not undo the fact that he
made a complete disclosure at the time of his arrest and, thus, the
Government had the full benefit of the information he provided to
aid in its further investigation of the criminal scheme in which he
participated.
Gonzalez has failed to show that he truthfully provided the
Government with all information and evidence regarding the instant
offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5);
United States v. Flanagan,
80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996). At
the time of his arrest, Gonzalez admitted that he had transported
marijuana into the United States twice before. He then recanted
this statement and denied ever having transported marijuana into
the United States. Gonzalez maintained this position at
sentencing, but, after conferring with counsel, asserted that he
had transported marijuana into the United States once before and
that the agents simply misinterpreted what he said during the post-
arrest interview. Gonzalez’s inconsistent statements call into
question his truthfulness. Therefore, the district court’s factual
finding that Gonzalez was not entitled to a safety-valve reduction
is plausible in light of the record as a whole, and the district
court did not clearly err in denying Gonzalez a safety-valve
reduction. See United States v. Edwards,
65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th
Cir. 1995) (denying application of § 5C1.2 because the defendant
provided conflicting accounts of the offense).
Gonzalez also contends that the district court erred when it
2
denied his request to continue the sentencing hearing to afford him
an opportunity to amend and explain his safety-valve statement.
Gonzalez has failed to show that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his request to continue the sentencing
hearing or that he suffered prejudice as a result of the district
court’s denial. See United States v. Peden,
891 F.2d 514, 519 (5th
Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3