United States v. Olguin

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40904
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REYNALDO OLGUIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CR-56-2
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reynaldo Olguin appeals from his sentence for conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Olguin argues that (1) the
district court erred in denying him a downward adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility and (2) the district court erred in
sentencing him to four years of supervised release.
In light of Olguin’s failure to meet with a probation
officer, failure to surrender, and provision of a false name to

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40904
-2-
police officers, his case does not qualify as an extraordinary
situation warranting adjustments for both obstruction of justice
and acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Chapa-
Garza, 62 F.3d 118, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.
McDonald, 964 F.2d 390, 391 (5th Cir. 1992).
Despite Olguin’s assertion to the contrary, the record shows
that the district court expressly recognized that the statutory
minimum sentence of four years of supervised release did not
apply to him, because he qualified for a safety-valve reduction.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2, comment. (n.2).
Olguin’s sentence of four years of supervised release falls
within the guideline range, U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(1), and he has
demonstrated no error, plain or otherwise. See United States v.
Kelly, 974 F.2d 22, 24 (5th Cir. 1992).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --