United States v. Moya
108 F. App'x 930
September 13, 2004 · Docket 04-40062
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
Moya argued the district court’s finding was based on speculation. The appellate court held the finding was plausible in light of the record and therefore not clearly erroneous, affirming the denial of the § 5C1.2 reduction.
- Headnote 2
Moya claimed the district court relied on government speculation in concluding he withheld information. The record, including the government’s testimony, supported the court’s finding, satisfying the plausibility standard and justifying the denial of the reduction.
- Headnote 3
Moya asserted he only stored drugs, arguing a minor role. The court found his conduct was co‑extensive with the drug‑distribution offense, and under clear‑error review the finding was not manifestly erroneous, so the § 3B1.2 reduction was properly denied.
- Headnote 4
Moya attempted a first‑time challenge to the constitutionality of § 841(a) and (b) under *Apprendi*. The Fifth Circuit held the argument was foreclosed by *United States v. Slaughter*, and therefore could not be considered on appeal.
- Headnote 5
On appeal, Moya argued that the district court wrongly denied a safety‑valve reduction because the finding he did not truthfully provide all information was speculative. The Fifth Circuit held the finding was plausible, supported by the record, and therefore proper under the Miller standard.
- Headnote 6
Moya claimed he was a minor participant because he only stored the drugs. The court found his conduct was co‑extensive with the distribution scheme, so his role was not minor. The finding was reviewed for clear error and was not manifestly erroneous, so the reduction was correctly denied.
- Headnote 7
Moya tried to invoke *Apprendi* to attack the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b). The Fifth Circuit held that *United States v. Slaughter* already foreclosed such a challenge, so the claim was barred and could not affect his conviction or sentence.
- Headnote 8
The Fifth Circuit held the finding was plausible in light of the record and not clearly erroneous, allowing denial of the safety‑valve reduction. The court relied on United States v. Miller and United States v. Edwards for the applicable standard.
- Headnote 9
The court found Moya’s role of storing the drugs was not minor because it was co‑extensive with the offense, and the finding was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Garcia’s clear‑error standard for minor‑participant analyses was applied.
- Headnote 10
Moya’s attempt to challenge 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b) under Apprendi was dismissed because United States v. Slaughter foreclosed the issue, making the claim waived. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the judgment.
- Headnote 11
The district court denied Moya a safety‑valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, finding he did not truthfully provide all information concerning the offense. The appellate court held the finding was plausible and not clearly erroneous, affirming the denial.
- Headnote 12
Moya argued his role was minor because he only stored drugs. The district court found his conduct was co‑extensive with the offense, and the Fifth Circuit upheld that finding as not clearly erroneous, denying the minor‑participant reduction.
- Headnote 13
Moya attempted for the first time to attack the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b) under *Apprendi*. The court held the argument was foreclosed by *United States v. Slaughter* and therefore could not be considered.
- Headnote 14
The Fifth Circuit applied two different standards of review to Moya’s challenges: a “plausible‑and‑not‑clearly‑erroneous” review for the safety‑valve finding and a “clear error” review for the minor‑participant finding.
Opinion
Domingo Moya appeals the 60-month sentences imposed following his convictions for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C). Moya asserts that the district court erroneously denied him a reduction under the Sentencing Guideline’s safety valve provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Moya contends that the district court’s finding, that he did not truthfully provide all infor mation and evidence that he had concerning the offense, was based on government speculation, which is an improper basis for refusing the reduction.
The district court denied Moya the U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 reduction based on the testimony of the case agent. The district court implicitly found that Moya had not provided all the information that he had regarding how he had obtained, and why he had been entrusted to store, such a large quantity of marijuana. The district court’s finding that Moya did not provide complete and truthful information regarding his offense is plausible in light of the record as a whole and is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963-64 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir.1995).
Moya next contends that the district court applied an incorrect standard and clearly erred by denying him an offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He asserts that his was a minor role because he merely allowed the drugs to be stored in his residence. He argues that the district court did not consider the relative culpability of the defendants.
Moya’s sentence was based on conduct with which he was directly involved, i.e., storing drugs at his residence. Moya’s “role was not minor, but actually coextensive with the conduct for which he was held accountable.” United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001). The district court’s finding that Moya was not entitled to an adjustment for being a minor participant is not clearly erroneous. See id. at 599.
Moya challenges, for the first time, the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Moya concedes, his Apprendi argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.