Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03751/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Reginald Wicks
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3751

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Reginald Wicks, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 12, 2007

Filed: March 20, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

 Reginald Wicks (Wicks) appeals his sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment

for distributing, possessing with the intent to distribute, and conspiring to distribute

crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)-(C), and 846.

Wicks argues the district court1

 erred by concluding Wicks was ineligible for safety

valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and United States Sentencing Guideline

§ 5C1.2. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-3751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2007 Entry ID: 3289883
2

A defendant is eligible for safety valve relief if:

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

as determined under the sentencing guidelines; 

(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). 

-2-

Wicks entered into a proffer agreement with the government in which he stated

Curtis Tatem (Tatem), his brother and co-defendant, distributed crack cocaine. Later,

Wicks recanted these statements, asserting law enforcement officers had pressured

him into making incriminating statements about Tatem. The district court found

Wicks was ineligible for safety valve relief because, by recanting his prior statements,

Wicks had not provided truthful information about his offenses. 

We review for clear error the district court’s findings regarding whether a

defendant is eligible for safety valve relief.2

 United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412

F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1096 (2006).

“Defendants have the burden to show affirmatively that they have satisfied each

Appellate Case: 05-3751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2007 Entry ID: 3289883
-3-

requirement for the safety valve, including whether truthful information and evidence

have been given to the government.” Id. Here, the district court’s finding that Wicks

was ineligible for safety valve relief, because Wicks recanted his prior statements and

thus never provided complete, truthful information to the government, is not clearly

erroneous. See United States v. Morones, 181 F.3d 888, 891 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating

“the defendant [who] initially tells the government the whole truth but later recants”

is “no more entitled to safety valve relief than the defendant who never discloses

anything about the crime and its participants”). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3751 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2007 Entry ID: 3289883