United States of America v. Luis Chacon-Manriquez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS CHACON-MANRIQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-2167
(D.C. No. 1:18-CR-02102-MV-1)
(D. N.M.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Luis Chacon-Manriquez pled guilty to a federal drug offense and was
sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months in prison. He appeals, arguing
the district court erred (1) by denying him “safety-valve” relief from the mandatory
minimum and (2) in calculating his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we
affirm.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 10, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-2167 Document: 010110559640 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 5 --

2
I. BACKGROUND
A. Offense Conduct, Indictment, and Guilty Plea
Mr. Chacon-Manriquez twice sold methamphetamine to an undercover agent.
These sales totaled about 1.3 kilograms. A grand jury indicted him on one count of
distributing 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Mr. Chacon-
Manriquez pled guilty to this count without entering into a plea agreement.
B. Sentencing
Mr. Chacon-Manriquez’s offense triggered a mandatory minimum sentence of
120 months in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The U.S. Probation
Office’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) did not recommend safety-valve
relief from this mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
Mr. Chacon-Manriquez objected to the PSR, arguing he qualified for the safety
valve. He and the Government disagreed as to whether he had satisfied the fifth of
five statutory requirements for safety-valve relief, which is that
not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the
defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all
information and evidence the defendant has concerning the
offense or offenses that were part of the same course of
conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that
the defendant has no relevant or useful other information
to provide or that the Government is already aware of the
information shall not preclude a determination by the court
that the defendant has complied with this requirement.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
Appellate Case: 20-2167 Document: 010110559640 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 5 --

3
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on whether Mr. Chacon-
Manriquez had met this requirement. After hearing testimony from Mr. Chacon-
Manriquez and his three witnesses, the court concluded he had not been truthful in
his representations to the Government. It identified numerous inconsistencies in his
statements. These inconsistencies “fatally undermine[d]” the credibility of the
statements he made to the Government. Aplee. Br. at 12-13.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Safety-Valve Relief
Legal Standards
“We review a district court’s factual determination on safety-valve eligibility
for clear error, including whether a defendant has provided the government with
complete and truthful information. A district court’s legal interpretation guiding its
application of the safety-valve provision is reviewed de novo. The defendant has the
burden to prove that he qualifies for the safety-valve by a preponderance of the
evidence.” United States v. Galvon-Manzo, 642 F.3d 1260, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2011)
(citation and quotations omitted).
When reviewing a district court’s factual findings about whether the defendant
provided complete and truthful information, we must be “cognizant that the district
court’s application of the safety valve is fact specific and dependent on credibility
determinations that cannot be replicated with the same accuracy on appeal.” United
States v. Altamirano–Quintero, 511 F.3d 1087, 1098 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations
omitted). Also, we recognize that a defendant’s disclosure obligations are “very
Appellate Case: 20-2167 Document: 010110559640 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 5 --

4
broad, requiring disclosure of everything the defendant knows about his own actions
and those who participated in the crime with him.” United States v. Myers, 106 F.3d
936, 941 (10th Cir. 1997).
Analysis
Mr. Chacon-Manriquez offers no meritorious argument as to why the district
court erred in finding that he had not provided the Government with truthful
information. Mr. Chacon-Manriquez has failed to address any of the specific
inconsistencies the district court identified as “fatally undermining” his credibility.
His inadequate appellate briefing waives any challenge to the district court’s refusal
to grant him safety-valve relief. See Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 1014 (10th
Cir. 2019). He otherwise has failed to demonstrate on the merits that the district
court’s factual findings were erroneous.
B. Offense Level Calculation
Mr. Chacon-Manriquez argues the district court should have applied
reductions to his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2(b) (minor
participant) and § 3E1.1(b) (acceptance of responsibility). But even if Mr. Chacon-
Manriquez could show he was entitled to these reductions, they would not have
lowered his sentence. See United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 764 F.3d 1248, 1262 (10th
Cir. 2014). Once Mr. Chacon-Manriquez pled guilty to distributing 500 grams or
more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, and once the district
court determined Mr. Chacon-Manriquez was not entitled to safety-valve relief, the
district court “had no discretion under the statute to do other than impose the
Appellate Case: 20-2167 Document: 010110559640 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
mandatory minimum sentence.” United States v. Payton, 405 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th
Cir. 2005). “Any error [in calculating his offense level] would be harmless.” United
States v. Grijalva, 800 F. App’x 632, 637 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (cited for
persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A)).
III. CONCLUSION
Mr. Chacon-Manriquez has not shown the district court clearly erred in finding
that he was not truthful in providing information to the Government and was thus
ineligible for safety-valve relief. Because Mr. Chacon-Manriquez was sentenced to
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, any error in the calculation of his
offense level would have been harmless. We affirm Mr. Chacon-Manriquez’s
sentence. We grant his unopposed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and we
discharge the show cause order regarding reimbursement for transcripts.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-2167 Document: 010110559640 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 5

-- 5 of 5 --