UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4744
JOE LOUIS BRADY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-96-36)
Submitted: July 29, 1997
Decided: August 19, 1997
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Joe Louis Brady appeals from his sentence following his guilty
plea to several drug-related counts pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) (West 1981 & Supp. 1997), and 18 U.S.C.
§ 1957(a) (1994). He alleges that the district court improperly calcu-
lated his sentence under the United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1995).* Because we find no merit to his
claim, we affirm.
Brady contends that the district court erred by refusing to sentence
him pursuant to the "safety valve" provision, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(f)
(West Supp. 1997); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, a
defendant convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 841 shall receive "a sen-
tence in accordance with the applicable guidelines without regard to
any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds that the defendant
meets the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5)." Brady claims that
the district court erred by finding that he failed to satisfy the criteria
in § 3553(f)(2), which requires in part that"the defendant did not . . .
possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another par-
ticipant to do so) in connection with the offense."
A defendant has the burden of proving that he qualifies for applica-
tion of the safety valve provision. See United States v. Beltran-Ortiz,
91 F.3d 665, 669 (4th Cir. 1996). The district court's determination
of whether Brady fulfilled the requirements of § 3553(f) is a question
of fact reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d
84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 144
(7th Cir. 1995).
_________________________________________________________________
*Brady was sentenced in September 1996.
2
During the sentencing hearing, the district court noted that in a
transcript of a tape-recorded drug transaction between Brady and a
confidential informant, Brady said that he carried a firearm, described
the ballistic capabilities of the weapon, and offered to obtain one for
the confidential informant. Brady did not object to the accuracy of the
transcript. In light of this evidence, we find that the district court did
not clearly err by finding that Brady possessed a firearm in connec-
tion with his crimes and therefore was not entitled to application of
the safety valve provision.
We affirm Brady's sentence. 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