UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4931
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRISTIAN NEVAREZ BELTRAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00025-MR-DLH-2)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: January 8, 2016
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP & WINTHROP, Statesville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cristian Nevarez Beltran pleaded guilty to conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2012). The district court sentenced Beltran to 87 months of
imprisonment, and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court clearly erred in refusing
to apply the sentencing safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
(2012) and in concluding that Beltran was not a minor
participant under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b)
(2013). Beltran was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error,
we affirm.
We review a district court’s application of the safety
valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) for clear error. United
States v. Henry, 673 F.3d 285, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). “This
standard of review permits reversal only if this Court is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). In conducting such a review, we accord “the district
court’s credibility determinations great deference.” Id. The
burden of establishing entitlement to the safety valve provision
2
falls on the defendant. United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600,
605 (4th Cir. 2012).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply the
safety valve provision. Given the great deference owed to its
credibility determination, we cannot conclude that the district
court erred in finding that Beltran was less than truthful with
investigators, and therefore ineligible for the safety valve
provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
We also review the application of USSG § 3B1.2 for clear
error. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.
2012). To establish eligibility for a reduced offense level
under Section 3B1.2, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled
to a mitigating role adjustment in sentencing.” Id. at 358-59
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude
that the district court did not clearly err in finding that
Beltran’s conduct was material or essential to committing the
offense in question and, consequently, that he was not entitled
to a reduced offense level under Section 3B1.2. See United
States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Beltran’s conviction and sentence.
3
This court requires that counsel inform Beltran, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Beltran requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Beltran.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4