United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 05-3053
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                 * District Court for the
                                         * District of Minnesota.
Juan Rene Sainz-Ortega,                  *
                                         *    [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: July 20, 2006
                                 Filed: August 4, 2006
                                  ___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       A jury found Juan Rene Sainz-Ortega guilty of three drug offenses and of
failing to appear for trial. The district court1 sentenced him to a total of 246 months
in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, Sainz-Ortega argues that the
district court erred by denying him safety-valve relief.

       We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying safety-valve
relief. See United States v. White, 

, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of

      1
       The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.
review). The question was whether Sainz-Ortega’s prior drug conviction was related
to his instant drug convictions as relevant conduct within the meaning of U.S.S.G.
§§ 1B1.3, 4A1.1, and 4A1.2. The answer to that question turned on a credibility
determination by the district court regarding Sainz-Ortega’s testimony at the
sentencing hearing about his prior drug conviction. The district court’s decision not
to believe Sainz-Ortega’s testimony is virtually unreviewable on appeal, and we have
no cause to disturb it in the circumstances presented here. See Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 

, 575 (1985).

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-