Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50656 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERTO HILL, also known as Roberto Avila, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-97-CR-460-1-H) March 28, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roberto Hill appeals his sentence based on his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess, and possession of
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50656 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERTO HILL, also known as Roberto Avila, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-97-CR-460-1-H) March 28, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roberto Hill appeals his sentence based on his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess, and possession of,..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50656
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERTO HILL, also known as
Roberto Avila,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-97-CR-460-1-H)
March 28, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto Hill appeals his sentence based on his guilty plea
conviction for conspiring to possess, and possession of, marijuana
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and
846. Hill contends the district court clearly erred in finding he
did not qualify for the safety-valve provision under U.S.S.G. §
5C1.2. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (allowing sentencing court to impose
sentence below minimum mandatory if five criteria met).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Hill was sentenced originally to 66 months’ imprisonment and
five years’ supervised release for each conviction. He did not
appeal. Claiming he was denied his right to appeal and effective
assistance of counsel, Hill filed a pro se motion to vacate his
sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He asserted, inter alia,
that, as a result of his attorney’s ineffectiveness, he was denied
both an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility and a two-level reduction under § 5C1.2.
The magistrate judge appointed counsel to represent Hill, and
conducted an evidentiary hearing. Recognizing that only the
district judge could determine the applicability of the § 5C1.2
safety-valve provision, the magistrate judge recommended that the
district judge review this issue in the light of the evidence
presented by both parties.
The district judge granted Hill’s § 2255 motion. At
resentencing, with regard to his safety-valve claim, Hill
emphasized: he had confessed; his confession led to the arrest of
a co-defendant; and he had been debriefed by the Government.
Although the district court granted Hill the requested additional
one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, it concluded
Hill did not qualify for the safety-valve provision because he had
not provided complete information about both his criminal conduct
and the conduct of others of which he had knowledge. Hill was
sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment, six months less than his
original sentence, and five years’ supervised release.
2
We review for clear error the district court’s decision not to
apply § 5C1.2. United States v. Flanagan,
80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th
Cir. 1996). Hill maintains the district judge clearly erred in
finding Hill did not qualify for the safety-valve provision. Hill
claims this finding was not supported by the factual findings of
the magistrate judge, to which there were no objections.
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district
judge’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Hill testified at the
evidentiary hearing that he answered the Government’s questions,
but did not volunteer additional information. Hill, thus, has not
shown he disclosed all the knowledge he had concerning the offense
to the Government. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5);
Flanagan, 80 F.3d at
146.
AFFIRMED
3