
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto MIRELES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-51191
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 15, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alvaro Martinez, Martinez Law Firm, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roberto Míreles appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred in imposing a leadership sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c).

The facts set forth in the Presentence Report (PSR) reflect that Míreles recruited his codefendant, Ernesto Fierro, and gave him instructions concerning obtaining the cocaine from two unknown persons and delivering it to a confidential informant. Although Míreles identified a witness who he stated could corroborate his allegation that Fierro was the actual leader or organizer of the conspiracy, the Government interviewed the witness and determined that the witness was not credible. Because Míreles did not present any evidence to rebut the facts in the PSR, the district court was entitled to rely on those facts. See United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173-74 (5th Cir.2002). Those facts support the district court’s finding that Míreles acted as a leader or organizer. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Giraldo, 111 F.3d 21, 24-25 (5th Cir.1997).

Míreles argues that the district court erred in not considering his statement for purposes of awarding a safety valve adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. At sentencing, the Government stated that Míreles had not been truthful in his debriefing; that he attempted to minimize his role in the offense by alleging that Fierro was the actual leader or organizer; and that the information in Mireles’s statement was not fruitful. Thus, the record supports the district court’s determination that Míreles was not entitled to the safety valve adjustment because he was not truthful with the Government in his debriefing and because the district court determined that he was a leader or organizer in the conspiracy. Therefore, Míreles did not meet his burden to establish that he was entitled to the safety valve adjustment. See United States v. McCrimmon, 443 F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     