United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41086
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LETICIA OCHOA ESTRADA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:05-CR-189-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leticia Ochoa Estrada (Ochoa) appeals her conviction and
sentence following her guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute approximately 7.5 kilograms of methamphetamine
(actual) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).
Ochoa was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment and five years
of supervised release.
Ochoa asserts that her plea was involuntary because the
district court did not inform her that, if she proceeded to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-41086
-2-
trial, she had the right to be protected from compelled self-
incrimination. Because Ochoa raises this issue for the first
time on appeal, this court reviews for plain error. See United
States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). In order to show that
the district court plainly erred, Ochoa must show the existence
of an error, that the error was clear and obvious, and that the
error affected her substantial rights. United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). If these conditions are met, then
this court will reverse the error only if it seriously affects
the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 735-37.
We have reviewed the rearraignment transcript, and it amply
reflects that the district court did not deviate from FED.
R. CRIM. P. 11 when it admonished Ochoa with respect to Ochoa’s
right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination at trial.
See United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722, 726 (5th Cir.
1991). Thus, Ochoa’s assertion that the district court’s
violation of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 rendered her guilty plea
involuntary is without merit.
Ochoa challenges the district court’s finding that U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1 did not apply because she did not meet the requirements
of the safety valve provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5), that she
completely and truthfully provide the Government with all
information and evidence she had concerning the offense. The
district court’s determination whether § 2D1.1 applies is a
No. 05-41086
-3-
factual finding, which we review for clear error. United States
v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 268 (2005). If a factual finding is plausible in
light of the record as a whole, there is no clear error. Id. at
203.
After a review of the record, we conclude that the district
court did not clearly err in determining that Ochoa was not
credible or truthful. Because Ochoa was found not credible, the
district court did not err in finding that Ochoa did not meet the
safety valve criteria in § 5C1.2, which would have qualified her
for a two-level downward adjustment pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(7).
United States v. Solis, 169 F.3d 224, 226 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996).
Ochoa also challenges the district court’s finding that she
did not qualify for a mitigating role adjustment. The district
court’s determination whether U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.2 and 2D1.1(a)(3)
apply is a factual finding, which we review for clear error.
Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203 & n.9. The defendant bears the
burden of proving that his role in the offense was minimal or
minor. United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 198 (5th Cir.
1995). Because Ochoa’s statements regarding the offense were not
credible, the district court’s determination that there was
insufficient evidence to determine Ochoa’s role in the offense is
not clearly erroneous.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.