Case: 23-40019 Document: 00516815411 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-40019 Summary Calendar FILED July 10, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ricardo Garcia, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22-CR-1002-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Ricardo Garcia, Jr. was sentenced to 120 months in prison after pleading guilty to importing 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred by finding him ineligible for a lower sentence under the safety-valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

Pointing to the provision’s use of the word “and,” Garcia contends that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-40019 Document: 00516815411 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2023

No. 23-40019

§ 3553(f)(1) renders a defendant ineligible for safety-valve relief only if all three of its conditions are met. He thus contends that it does not apply here because his criminal history lacks a two-point violent offense under § 3553(f)(1)(C).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. The motion asserts that Garcia’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-6391). There, the panel majority concluded that § 3553(f)(1) renders criminal defendants ineligible for safety-valve relief “if they run afoul of any one of its requirements.” Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647.

Garcia correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Palomares absent an intervening change in the law. See United States v. James, 950 F.3d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 2020). Summary disposition is appropriate in these circumstances. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as MOOT.