United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41595
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL ANGEL MADRIGAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-2034-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Angel Madrigal pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to
distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He
now appeals the district court’s denial of a so-called safety
valve reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Finding no error,
we affirm.
Of the five criteria for a § 5C1.2 adjustment, the only one
at issue here is the requirement that the defendant has
truthfully provided the Government with all information and
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41595
-2-
evidence he has concerning the offense. We review the district
court’s factual finding that Madrigal did not truthfully debrief
for clear error. See United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963-
64 (5th Cir. 1999).
Contrary to Madrigal’s assertions, the district court’s
conclusion was not based on unsubstantiated speculation. Rather,
the district court heard directly from Madrigal and concluded
that his story that a stranger sought him out randomly to
transport a large and valuable load of marijuana for $10,000 was
not plausible. The district court’s credibility determination,
entitled to great deference, was not clearly erroneous. United
States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 753 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 968 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Salinas-Capistran, 133 Fed. App’x 112, 113-14 (5th Cir.
2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.