Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01205/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John L. Anthony
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1205

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

John L. Anthony, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 26, 2004

Filed: September 2, 2004 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Anthony appeals the district court's1

 refusal to apply "safety valve" relief

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) to his sentence for violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm because the

district court did not clearly err.

On October 14, 2003, John Anthony pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in

Appellate Case: 04-1205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806641 
-2-

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court

sentenced Anthony to the statutory minimum of ten years' imprisonment, followed by

five years of supervised release. Before sentencing, Anthony participated in a proffer

interview with Officer Stuart Nadgwick of the Fremont Police Department. Officer

Nadgwick asked Anthony about his participation in the distribution of

methamphetamine and his involvement with identified co-conspirators. The

Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) contained several co-conspirator accounts of

methamphetamine sales to or by Anthony and detailed his direct involvement in the

conspiracy. Anthony did not object to these relevant portions of the PSR. Anthony

moved for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). The

government objected, arguing that Anthony had not truthfully provided the

government with all information and evidence he had concerning the offense as

required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). The district court

relied on a report of the proffer interview, the PSR, a recorded telephone

conversation, drug ledgers, testimony by Officers Nadgwick and Smoot of their

investigation in the case, and Anthony's testimony to render its sentence.

A court shall impose a sentence without regard to any statutory minimum

sentence if the court finds at sentencing that, inter alia, "not later than the time of the

sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all

information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that

were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan ." 18 U.S.C.

3553(f)(5), U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). A district court may accept as true all factual

allegations contained in a PSR that are not specifically objected to by the parties.

United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 1993). A criminal defendant has

the burden to prove he is entitled to the safety valve relief available under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f). United States v. O'Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 838 (8th Cir. 2000). Our review

of the district court's factual findings in such cases is for clear error. Id. "The

sentencing court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is nearly unreviewable."

United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722, 736 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Appellate Case: 04-1205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806641 
-3-

The district court did not clearly err in denying Anthony safety valve relief.

Numerous contradictions between evidence provided by the PSR, the recorded

conversation, drug ledgers, and Officers Nadgwick's and Smoot's testimony on the

one hand; and Anthony's proffer interview and testimony at sentencing on the other,

provided sufficient grounds for the district court's determination. The district court

was entitled to assess the credibility of the witnesses as part of that finding, and we

do not second-guess that determination today.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1205 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806641