Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01456/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01456-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marileen Bonita Edgar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1456

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Marileen Bonita Edgar, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2005

Filed: November 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marileen Bonita Edgar pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

more than fifty grams of cocaine base. The district court*

 imposed the statutory

minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Edgar now appeals her sentence arguing

the court erroneously concluded she did not qualify for relief from the statutory

minimum under the safety valve, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We

affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-1456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977646
-2-

To qualify for safety valve relief, Edgar had the burden to show, among other

things, that she had truthfully provided the government with all information about her

crime before sentencing. See United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.

1998). We review the district court’s decision that Edgar did not carry her burden for

clear error. See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996). 

At the proffer session, Edgar identified her source as Ellis McGee, but could not

provide an address or phone number for him. Because the government had

information that Edgar’s source was someone else, the government believed Edgar

had not been fully truthful and thus opposed application of the safety valve. At a

sentencing hearing on the issue, the officer involved in the proffer session testified

that although Edgar had identified her source as McGee, the officer had received

information from an informant that Barnard Van was Edgar’s supplier. The officer

also testified he was familiar with Edgar and her relationship with Van. Van operated

an escort business and Edgar had been arrested in 2001 and 2002 for prostitution.

Further, the officer testified Edgar’s codefendant identified Van as Edgar’s supplier.

In the officer’s opinion, Edgar’s supplier was Van, not McGee. Edgar testified she

had received drugs from McGee for about six months, and had never sold drugs for

Van, who was a friend. After hearing the testimony, the district found the officer’s

testimony was credible and Edgar had not been substantially truthful in her proffer.

On appeal, Edgar argues the Government breached an oral promise to

recommend safety valve relief if she satisfied the statute’s requirements. Edgar

contends she was truthful at the proffer and provided all information she could. The

district court’s contrary finding is not clearly erroneous. The officer’s testimony at

the hearing provides a sufficient basis for a finding that Edgar was not truthful about

the identity of her supplier, and was thus not truthful about her offense. See United

States v. Weekly, 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 1997). The court’s decision that the

officer was credible is virtually unreviewable on appeal, and the court did not commit

Appellate Case: 05-1456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977646
-3-

clear error in crediting the testimony of the officer over Edgar’s testimony. United

States v. Candie, 974 F.2d 61, 64 (8th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, we affirm Edgar’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1456 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977646