
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin TINAJERO-REYES, also known as Martin Tinajero Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-41712
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E, Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Myrna G. Montemayor, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Martin Tinajero-Reyes (“Tinajero”) appeals his sentence following pleading guilty to possession of over five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). He argues that the district court erroneously denied him a sentence reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines’ safety valve provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

The safety valve provision, in pertinent part, requires that a defendant, at or before sentencing, provide the Government with all the information and evidence he has concerning his offense. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). We are usually reluctant to disturb a district court’s credibility determinations and see no reason to do so in the case at hand. See United, States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir.2003). Tinajero’s story was incredible. After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the district court did not clearly err when it denied Tinajero the reduction afforded by the safety valve.

Tinajero also challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Tinajero concedes, his Appren-di argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     