UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4682
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHEILA ROCHELLE NEAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00261-NCT-3)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United
States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sheila R. Neal appeals the 120-month sentence imposed
by the district court following a guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more
of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a), (b)(1)(A) (2006). On appeal, Neal contends that the
district court erred in concluding that she was ineligible for a
downward departure based on the safety valve provision in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5) (2009). Specifically, Neal contends
that the district court improperly found that she failed to
prove that she had truthfully provided to the Government all of
the information that she had concerning the offense. We affirm.
A district court’s determination of whether a
defendant has satisfied the safety valve criteria is a question
of fact reviewed for clear error. United States v. Wilson, 114
F.3d 429, 432 (4th Cir. 1997). This deferential standard of
review requires reversal only if we are “left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United
States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).
A district court shall impose a sentence within the
applicable guideline range, but without regard to any mandatory
minimum sentence if a defendant meets five requirements. 18
2
U.S.C. § 3553(f); USSG § 5C1.2. These requirements are: (1) the
defendant does not have more than one criminal history point;
(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of
violence in connection with the offense; (3) the offense did not
result in death or serious bodily injury; (4) the defendant was
not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor; and (5) the
defendant truthfully provides the Government with all evidence
the defendant has concerning the offense. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f)(1)-(5); USSG § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). The defendant bears
the burden to show “that the prerequisites for application of
the safety valve provision, including truthful disclosure has
been met.” United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 669
(4th Cir. 1996). The district court is “free to reject a
defendant’s claim of full disclosure for credibility reasons.”
Id. at n.4.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Neal failed
to establish that she had satisfied the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f), USSG § 5C1.2. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3