Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02430/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02430-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Soto
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2430

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District of

* Nebraska

Jose Soto, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

 Filed: June 1, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Jose Soto appeals his sentence of 120 months of imprisonment for one count

of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and one

count of criminal forfeiture. Soto argues that he was entitled to a safety-valve

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G § 5C1.2(a). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2006 Entry ID: 2051016
1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

I.

On July 22, 2004, a grand jury issued an indictment charging Soto and four codefendants with drug and firearm offenses. Thereafter, Soto entered into a plea

agreement with the government. Soto agreed to be held responsible for at least 500

grams, but less than 1.5 kilograms, of methamphetamine. Soto stipulated that his Base

Offense Level was 32. Soto agreed to plead guilty to two of the counts in the

indictment, and the government agreed to make a motion to dismiss another count in

the indictment.

Soto pled guilty before the district court1

 on December 6, 2004. The district

court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSR). A revised PSR recommended

a Base Offense Level of 36 and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility

yielding a Total Offense Level of 33. The revised PSR listed Soto as having a

Category I Criminal History with a resulting Guidelines range of 135-168 months

imprisonment. 

Prior to sentencing, the district court accepted the stipulation of the Base

Offense Level of 32, and, consequently, did not accept the recommendation of the

revised PSR. The district court also deducted three levels for acceptance of

responsibility yielding a Total Offense Level of 29. 

Soto believed that he was entitled to safety-valve relief under the Sentencing

Guidelines due to his two proffer interviews in December 2004. Soto attempted to

reach an agreement with the government about safety-valve relief, but the two parties

did not reach an agreement before Soto’s sentencing. 

Appellate Case: 05-2430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2006 Entry ID: 2051016
-3-

At sentencing, on May 9, 2005, the district court accepted the plea agreement

between Soto and the government. With a Total Offense Level of 29 and a Criminal

History Category I, the district court determined that a Guidelines sentencing range

of 87-108 months was appropriate. The statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months

was greater than the range determined by the district court based on Soto’s offense

level and criminal history. Pursuant to § 5G1.1(b), the Guidelines sentence thus

became 120 months imprisonment. 

The district court denied safety-valve relief for Soto because he had not met the

statutory requirements to prove his eligibility. Specifically, the district court found

that Soto was neither completely truthful in his statements about his role in the

offenses nor about his conduct relevant to that offense. Consequently, the district

court sentenced Soto to 120 months imprisonment.

II.

Soto had the burden to prove that he qualified for a safety-valve sentencing

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) and U.S.S.G § 5C1.2(a). United States v.

O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 838 (8th Cir. 2000). “We review for clear error a district

court’s findings as to the completeness and truthfulness of a defendant’s safety-valve

proffer.” United States v. Bolanos, 409 F.3d 1045, 1047 (8th Cir. 2005). 

“The ‘safety valve’ provision permits a district court to impose on a drug

defendant a more lenient sentence within the otherwise applicable guidelines range

if certain conditions are met.” O’Dell, 204 F.3d at 838. In order to qualify for safetyvalve relief, a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

(1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point,

as determined under the sentencing guidelines;

Appellate Case: 05-2430 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2006 Entry ID: 2051016
-4-

(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of

violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce

another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;

(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to

any person;

(4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or

supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing

guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as

defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and

(5) 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, but the fact that

the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or

that the Government is already aware of the information shall not

preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied

with this requirement.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

The district court found that Soto had failed to satisfy the fifth prong of the

safety-valve requirements. The district court found that Soto gave neither truthful and

complete information regarding the offense for which he pled guilty nor truthful and

complete information about his relevant conduct.

A defendant is not entitled to safety-valve relief when he or she just conveys

the “basic facts of his [or her] crime.” United States v. Alarcon-Garcia, 327 F.3d 719,

723 (8th Cir. 2003). A defendant must prove “through affirmative conduct, that he

[or she] gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant

crimes before sentencing.” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996).

“In making its assessment of the truthfulness of a safety valve proffer, the district

Appellate Case: 05-2430 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/01/2006 Entry ID: 2051016
-5-

court is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” United States v.

Alvarado-Rivera 412 F.3d 942, 948 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

In this case, Soto offers his two December 2004 proffers to argue that he was

eligible for safety-valve relief. However, there are several reasons those proffers do

not meet the requirements of the fifth prong of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). In the two

proffers, Soto claimed to have had a minimal role in the drug conspiracy. Soto’s story

about his role contradicted the interviews of the other co-defendants in the case.

Soto’s account was also less detailed than those of his co-defendants. There were also

numerous discrepancies between the interviews of the co-defendants and Soto about

specific factual events. 

The district court found that Soto had not been completely truthful and

forthcoming in his proffers. One particular claim by Soto illustrates the district

court’s grounds for questioning the veracity of Soto’s proffers. Soto asserted that the

first day he met co-defendant Richard Garza at the Maple Street bar was the day of

Soto’s arrest. While waiting to place an order with another co-defendant, Sergio

Martinez-Soto, Soto alleges that he first met Garza. Because neither Soto nor

Martinez-Soto spoke English, Soto alleges that they asked Garza to place an order for

them. It was at this time that Soto alleged that he first spoke with Garza about drugs.

Based upon this chance meeting, Soto alleged that Garza immediately trusted Soto and

Martinez-Soto, accompanied Soto and Martinez-Soto to a drug buyer’s home, and

entrusted Soto and Martinez-Soto to hold drugs and money for Garza. This account

by Soto strains credulity. Not surprisingly, Soto’s story was inconsistent with Garza

and Martinez-Soto’s interviews regarding the same meeting. 

The proffers of all of the other co-defendants show a larger role for Soto than

he attributed to himself in his own proffer. There were also statements in Garza’s

proffer which connected Soto to the firearm in the case. Specifically, Garza alleged

that Soto was the one who purchased the gun. Soto denied any such connection. The

Appellate Case: 05-2430 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/01/2006 Entry ID: 2051016
-6-

district court found that Soto’s proffered testimony was not sufficiently credible to

meet Soto’s burden for receiving safety-valve relief. We generally do not disturb such

a credibility finding by a district court. See United States v. Shallal, 410 F.3d 434,

437 (8th Cir. 2005)

Because of the discrepancies with the other interviews in the case, we do not

find error with the district court’s handling of this issue. It was Soto’s burden to prove

he qualified for safety-valve relief. Based upon the record before us, we see nothing

that would indicate the district court erred in finding Soto had failed to meet that

burden.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2430 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/01/2006 Entry ID: 2051016