United States v. Serna, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40957
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEOPOLDO H. SERNA, III
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-19-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leopoldo H. Serna, III, appeals his sentence following
pleading guilty to possession of over 100 kilograms of marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He argues that
the district court erroneously denied him a sentence reduction
under the Sentencing Guidelines’ safety valve provision, U.S.S.G.
§ 5C1.2. We review a sentencing court’s refusal to apply the
safety valve provision for clear error. United States
v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 195 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40957
-2-
The safety valve provision, in pertinent part, requires that
a defendant, at or before sentencing, provide the Government with
all the information and evidence he has concerning his offense.
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). We are usually reluctant to disturb a
district court’s credibility determinations and see no reason to
do so in the case at hand. See United States v. Ridgeway, 321
F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 2003). Serna’s story was both vague and
incredible. After reviewing the record, we are convinced that
the district court did not clearly err when it denied Serna the
reduction afforded by the safety valve. Its judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --