Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02826/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02826-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Jesus Guerra-Cabrera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2826

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

 * 

v. * 

 * 

Sergio Jesus Guerra-Cabrera, *

 * 

Defendant/Appellant. * 

 * 

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 06-2827 District Court for the

___________ District of Minnesota.

United States of America, * 

 *

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

 * 

v. * 

 * 

Nazario Espinoza-Cabrera, *

 * 

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2007

 Filed: February 27, 2007

 ____________

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

2

Appellant Espinoza-Cabrera stated in his briefing and at his sentencing hearing

that his real name is Cabrera-Espinoza, but in this opinion we use the name appearing

in his indictment and judgment. 

3

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Before MURPHY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and READE, District Judge.1

 ____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Sergio Jesus Guerra-Cabrera and Nazario Espinoza-Cabrera2

 each pled guilty

to one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court3

 imposed mandatory minimum

sentences of 120 months imprisonment after determining that the defendants were not

eligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). They appeal their sentences,

and we affirm. 

Officers from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) began

investigating Sergio Jesus Guerra-Cabrera after receiving information from a

confidential informant that he was selling cocaine in the Twin Cities area. The

informant introduced an undercover officer to Guerra-Cabrera as a potential customer,

and on August 3, 2005 the undercover officer purchased one ounce of cocaine from

him. During the transaction Guerra-Cabrera indicated that he would be able to

provide large amounts of cocaine on a weekly basis. Following the controlled buy a

uniformed officer made a routine traffic stop of Guerra-Cabrera's vehicle, at which

time Guerra-Cabrera produced identification with the name Alejandro Hernandez

Martinez. 

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
-3-

On August 9, 2005 the undercover officer spoke with Guerra-Cabrera by

telephone and arranged to purchase two ounces of cocaine and two ounces of crack.

Guerra-Cabrera told the officer that one of his "guys" would complete the transaction.

When the officer went to the prearranged location, he was met by Nazario EspinozaCabrera who entered the undercover vehicle and informed him that the drugs were on

the way. Immediately thereafter an unidentified man approached the vehicle and

handed Espinoza-Cabrera a pair of khaki shorts which contained two ounces each of

powder and crack cocaine. After Espinoza-Cabrera completed the transaction and

walked away from the officer's vehicle, surveillance officers observed him meeting

with both Guerra-Cabrera and the unidentified man. 

The undercover officer staged one final controlled buy for August 22, 2005.

The officer met both Guerra-Cabrera and Espinoza-Cabrera in his undercover vehicle

in the parking lot of the same restaurant. Guerra-Cabrera indicated that he would not

be able to provide the promised amount of one half kilogram of cocaine and two

ounces of crack because his supplier was in Chicago, so the officer arranged to

purchase four ounces of cocaine and two ounces of crack for $4200. Surveillance

officers then observed both suspects exit the vehicle and walk into an apartment

complex. They returned to the parking lot a short time later with the drugs, and they

were placed under arrest. Keys to an apartment in the complex they had visited were

found on Espinoza-Cabrera, and a search warrant was obtained for the apartment. 

Later that same day officers executed the warrant and recovered drugs, more

than $12,000 in cash, and numerous items of drug paraphernalia. The only

furnishings in the apartment were a bed, chair, and weight bench, but officers also

found photographs and documents belonging to both defendants, a rental agreement

for the apartment in the names of Alejandro Martinez Hernandez and Juan Bartolo,

and a .45 caliber handgun with a loaded magazine lying next to it. In a later interview

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
-4-

Espinoza-Cabrera revealed that Juan Bartolo was the name of his father and that he

had used that name for false identification.

Appellants were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute more than 150 grams of cocaine base and 450 grams of cocaine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine

and 50 grams of cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute more than 100

grams of cocaine and 50 grams of cocaine base, and possession with intent to

distribute more than 250 grams of cocaine and 50 grams of cocaine base, all in

violation of § 841. Based on the amount of drugs involved in their offenses,

appellants faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. See 21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A). They could receive a lesser sentence only if they established their

eligibility for safety valve relief, see U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(9), 5C.1.2, which provides

for guideline sentences below the mandatory minimum in certain defined

circumstances. 

In order to qualify for the safety valve, the government must have had the

opportunity to makes its sentencing recommendation and the court must have found

that the defendant has no more than one criminal history point, has not used violence

or possessed a firearm in connection with the offense, has not committed an offense

resulting in death or serious bodily injury, has not been an organizer, leader, manager,

or supervisor of others or engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, and has

truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence that he has

concerning his offense no later than the time of the sentencing hearing. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f). 

Appellants participated in separate proffer interviews with the government, and

these interviews were summarized by a BCA agent who had been present. GuerraCabrera admitted that he had received the handgun found at the stash house as partial

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
-5-

payment for a drug sale. He also admitted that he had lied in a previous interview

when he told the officers that his supplier was a man known as "V." Both appellants

identified their drug supplier only as a man called "El Pepino." While Guerra-Cabrera

stated that El Pepino was the unidentified man who had delivered the khaki shorts to

the undercover vehicle, Espinoza-Cabrera said the unidentified man was "El Rojo,"

a friend of El Pepino. Espinoza-Cabrera initially admitted that he started selling

drugs several months prior to his arrest, but later in the interview stated that he had

never sold drugs to anyone other than the undercover officer. 

Both men admitted to having obtained their supply of drugs from the stash

house in the apartment complex but claimed to have had only limited access to the

apartment. When asked how they obtained access for the August 22 controlled buy,

Guerra-Cabrera stated that El Pepino was in New York at the time but had left the

keys to the apartment in a washing machine in the laundry room for them to retrieve.

Espinoza-Cabrera stated that El Pepino was in town and had left the keys under a car.

When questioned about the documents at the stash house, Espinoza-Cabrera stated

that El Pepino allowed him to keep some personal effects there because he was

planning an upcoming move. Guerra-Cabrera claimed that El Pepino kept documents

and photographs belonging to him as security to ensure that he did not leave. 

In its recommendation letter to the district court, the government took the

position that neither appellant was eligible for the safety valve because both had failed

to provide substantially truthful information concerning their involvement in the

charged offenses. In support the government submitted the agent summaries of the

interviews. It pointed to a number of inconsistencies in appellants' statements,

including the identity of the third participant in the August 9 controlled buy and the

location of the keys to the apartment. It argued that appellants presented an

implausible account of their relationship to El Pepino and their access to the stash

house in an attempt to minimize their involvement in drug trafficking and to distance

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
-6-

themselves from the drugs and gun found there. If appellants had so little contact with

El Pepino, he was unlikely to trust them with the keys to his stash house according to

the government, which submitted that appellants were actually using the apartment

as their own stash house. It also questioned appellants' failure to identify their drug

supplier with any specificity. 

The district court held a sentencing hearing at which Espinoza-Cabrera testified,

but Guerra-Cabrera did not. Espinoza-Cabrera swore that he had provided truthful

information to the government. He reiterated his claim that he did not regularly keep

keys to the stash house and stated that he had visited the apartment only three or four

times. He did not provide any additional information about the identity of his drug

supplier or a way to contact him. He also called two witnesses. One witness testified

that he had rented the apartment to two Hispanic males but was able to identify only

Guerra-Cabrera. The other testified that Espinoza-Cabrera resided in a different

neighborhood from the one where the stash house was located. The government did

not submit additional evidence, relying instead on evidence already in the record and

on its letter to the court with the attached summaries of the proffer interviews. 

The district court determined that appellants were not eligible for a sentence

below the statutory minimum, stating that it "had the firm impression that [their]

statements were not complete, not truthful, and don't satisfy the purposes of [the]

safety valve." The district court did not find Espinoza-Cabrera's testimony at the

hearing to be credible. It also found that both appellants' statements to the

government "don't add up," citing as one example the fact that Espinoza-Cabrera

equivocated when asked whether Juan Bartolo was his father's name. Although the

district court expressed concern about the gun found at the stash house which could

preclude safety valve eligibility if the court found that it was possessed in connection

with the offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2), the court did not make any findings of

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
-7-

fact with respect to the weapon. The district court then sentenced each appellant to

120 months. 

Appellants assert on appeal that the district court erred by not awarding them

safety valve treatment even after they submitted to proffer interviews with the

government. The government responds that appellants' statements in their proffer

interviews were neither truthful nor complete, that appellants offered implausible

accounts of their involvement with drugs, and that this court should defer to the

district court's findings about the credibility of their accounts. We will overturn a

district court's findings with respect to safety valve eligibility only if they are clearly

erroneous. United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996). Affirmance is

required so long as the record supports those findings, regardless of which party is

favored. United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999). Defendants

bear the burden of establishing that they have met each of the five eligibility

requirements, including that they have provided truthful information to the

government. See United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 1998). 

This appeal turns on whether appellants provided all information they possessed

to the government, or more precisely, whether the district court's findings that

appellants did not were clearly erroneous. Appellants contend that the district court

erred by demanding an unreasonably high degree of disclosure and detail in the

information provided to the government. Participation in a proffer interview is never

a guarantee of safety valve relief, however. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,

412 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). To merit safety valve treatment a

defendant must do more than disclose the basic facts of his crime. United States v.

Alarcon-Garcia, 327 F.3d 719, 723 (8th Cir. 2003). He must disclose whatever

information he has about his offense, and the district court can hold him accountable

for revealing the identities and participation of others involved in the offense if it

could reasonably be expected he would have such information. Id. 

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
4

Appellants' contention that the district court conflated safety valve eligibility

with the requirements for a substantial assistance departure is without merit. While

truthful information is relevant for both, a substantial assistance departure also

requires that positive results follow for the prosecution. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.

-8-

Here, the district court did not deny appellants safety valve treatment simply

because they had no useful information to provide, but rather because it determined

that appellants had failed to disclose truthfully and fully the information they

possessed about their offenses, including identification of their drug supplier and the

full nature of their connection to the stash house.4

 Moreover, the district court did not

rely solely on its determination that appellants had not told all they knew about their

transactions, but rather denied them eligibility because it found their accounts not

truthful. We cannot say that these findings were in clear error. 

The district court was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence,

including discrepancies between the appellants' statements, see Soto, United States v.

Soto, 448 F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir. 2006), and changes in their accounts over time, see

Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d at 948. Guerra-Cabrera and Espinoza-Cabrera gave

conflicting statements about the identity of the third man involved in the August 9

controlled buy, about how they obtained the key to the stash house on August 22,

about the location of the elusive El Pepino at the time of the August 22 controlled buy,

and about why the stash house contained personal documents belonging to both

defendants. In addition, Espinoza-Cabrera gave inconsistent statements during his

proffer interview about whether he had been involved in prior drug sales, and GuerraCabrera admitted to having lied to authorities about the identity of his supplier. 

The district court was also entitled to infer untruthfulness from the

implausibility of appellants' accounts. See Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d at 948

(upholding court's findings on basis of, among other things, improbability that large

quantities of drugs would be fronted to supposedly minor drug dealer). Both denied

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
-9-

having regular access to the stash house, despite the fact that Espinoza-Cabrera had

a set of keys to the apartment at the time of his arrest, that the apartment contained

personal documents belonging to both men, and that the names on the lease were false

names associated with them. While simultaneously claiming little to no knowledge

about the identity of their drug supplier, including his address, phone number, or real

name, they maintained that he left them the keys to his stash house, which contained

very valuable amounts of cash and drugs, in a common area of the apartment complex.

It was not unreasonable for the district court to have inferred that appellants were

obscuring the identity of their drug supplier and the true extent of their connection to

the stash house. In addition, the district court heard testimony from Espinoza-Cabrera,

and her finding that he was not credible is virtually unreviewable on appeal. See

United States v. Gomez-Perez, 452 F.3d 739, 743 (8th Cir. 2006).

While acknowledging that a defendant bears the burden of establishing each

criteria for safety valve eligibility in the first instance, Guerra-Cabrera goes on to

argue that if the government finds the proffer inadequate, it then has the burden of

coming forward with additional evidence to challenge the truthfulness or

completeness of that proffer. This same argument was squarely rejected by the en

banc court in United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc). The panel decision in that case had relied on United States v. Kang, 143 F.3d

379 (8th Cir. 1998), to conclude that the burden shifted to the government upon a

challenge to the proffer's truthfulness, United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 386 F.3d

861, 868 (8th Cir. 2004), but the en banc court distinguished Kang as inapposite.

Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d at 948. Guerra-Cabrera nevertheless cites to Kang for

support of its burden-shifting theory without mentioning the en banc authority in

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389
5

There can be little doubt that counsel was aware of our en banc decision since

parts of his brief in this case echo word for word the dissenting portion of the en banc

opinion.

-10-

direct opposition to that theory.5

 The burden of establishing qualification for the

safety valve remained on Guerra-Cabrera. 

Because the record before the district court supports its findings that appellants

had not been truthful or provided all information they had, the government was not

required to introduce any additional evidence. See Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d at 949.

Guerra-Cabrera asserts that the district court was not entitled to find that his

statements lacked credibility since the court never heard him testify. This argument

is as unavailing here at it was in Alvarado-Rivera, where we upheld the district court's

safety valve findings notwithstanding that they were based on a cold record, including

summaries of the defendants' proffer statements. Id. at 948-49. If appellants were

unhappy with the state of the record, it was their responsibility to introduce additional

evidence in order to meet their burden. See Santana, 150 F.3d at 864. 

Since the record supports the district court's findings that Guerra-Cabrera and

Espinoza-Cabrera failed truthfully to provide all information they had about their

offenses, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in concluding they were

ineligible for safety valve relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district

court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2826 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/27/2007 Entry ID: 3282389