Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01363/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01363-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theola A. Blackmon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1363

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

 v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Theola A. Blackmon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2009

Filed: April 30, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Theola A. Blackmon pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the

intent to distribute marijuana and at least five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), and 846 (Count I), and conceded the

applicability of the criminal forfeiture provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853 (Count III). The

district court sentenced Blackmon to a statutory minimum 120 months imprisonment

and 5 years supervised release. Blackmon appeals his sentence. 

Appellate Case: 09-1363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660174
2

Blackmon filed various letters before the district court and before this court

asserting, among other things, that his counsel lied to him and coerced him into

pleading guilty. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims “are usually best litigated in

-2-

Blackmon first challenges the district court’s finding Blackmon was ineligible

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

because the district court accepted the government’s recommendation that Blackmon

was not truthful in his proffer interviews. “The district court’s safety valve findings

can be overturned only if they are clearly erroneous.” United States v.

Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted). 

In his plea, Blackmon acknowledged shipping packages of cocaine and packages

of marijuana from California to St. Louis, Missouri, and Blackmon later attempted to

limit his admission to shipping marijuana only. Blackmon contends the district court

clearly erred in finding the drug shipment quantities, arguing a substantial difference

existed between the package weights the government’s case agent identified and the

weights reported by the packaging company, which difference seriously undermined

the agent’s credibility. Blackmon suggests, because of the discrepancy, the district

court should have granted him safety valve relief, presumably because the government

witness’s testimony was demonstrably unreliable. We note “[w]itness credibility is

‘quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal.’” United States

v. Bolden, 596 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. SicarosQuintero, 557 F.3d 579, 582 (8th Cir. 2009)). We conclude the district court’s

credibility determination here is unassailable.

Even if all of the case agent’s testimony were disregarded, ample evidence still

supports the district court’s finding. For example, Blackmon pled guilty to conspiring

to distribute five kilograms of cocaine, yet at the proffer interviews he admitted to, at

most, three kilograms, and at allocution denied knowing about cocaine shipments at

all.2

 Similarly, Blackmon suggested two of his coconspirators, Jeffrey Hill and Juan

Appellate Case: 09-1363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660174
collateral proceedings.” United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27

(8th Cir. 2006). We therefore decline to address the issue on this direct appeal.

-3-

Avendano, were conducting drug transactions without Blackmon’s involvement, but

telephone records and a tape recorded conversation between Blackmon and Hill

contradicted this contention. The district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

Blackmon also argues the district court erred in denying him safety valve relief

because the court erroneously believed it was bound by the government’s

determination as to Blackmon’s truthfulness at the proffer hearings. Because

Blackmon failed to raise this issue at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United

States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 772 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)).

Before we

correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain,

and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, [we]

may then exercise [our] discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if

(4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings.

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. United

States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997)). Although we agree with Blackmon that the

district court erred when it repeatedly stated it lacked authority to find Blackmon was

safety valve eligible, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (“[T]he court shall impose a sentence

pursuant to [the Guidelines] without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the

court finds [the safety valve factors] at sentencing, after the Government has been

afforded the opportunity to make a recommendation.” (emphasis added)), the error did

not affect either his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

the proceeding. Our review of the record supports the conclusion that the district court

would have denied Blackmon safety valve relief regardless of this issue. Because

Blackmon’s substantial rights were not violated, and because of the overwhelming

evidence of Blackmon’s duplicitousness during the proffer interviews, we decline to

Appellate Case: 09-1363 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660174
-4-

exercise our discretion to notice the error in this case. See Puckett v. United States,

556 U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009) (observing our “discretion to remedy [plain]

error . . . ought to be exercised only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 736 (1993) (internal marks omitted)). 

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1363 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660174