FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 25, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15967 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 6 0 0 7 4 - C R - UU B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E R U B E S R A M I R E Z - M A R T I N E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 25, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E ru b e s R a m ir e z - M a r tin e z ap p e a ls h is 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to2

p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te h e r o in , a n d a tte m p te d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e her oi n, bo th i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . M art i nez- R am i re z a rgues th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h im as a f e ty - v a lv e r e d u c tio n o f

h is s e n te n c e . H e a ss ert s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d (1) by fi nd i ng thathi s s t at em ent s i n sup po rt of a s af ety val ve re du ct i on w er e untruthful ; and (2) by denyi ng hi m a c on t i nu ance t o o b t ai n ev i d en t i ary su p p o rtfo r h i s st at em en t s. T h e “ safety-v al v e” p ro v i si o n , p ro v i d ed i n U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1 . 2 , req u i res a di stri ctcourtt o sent ence a def endantw i tho utre gard t o any st atut ory m i ni m um i f, in te ra lia , “ th e d efen d an th as tr u th fu lly pr ovi de d t o the G ove rnm e nta l l i nf or m a t i on a nd e vi de nc e the de f

e nda ntha d c onc e rni ng the of f e ns e . . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2( 5) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he que s t i on of w he the rthe de f

e nda nt ’ s s a f

e ty - va l ve s t a t e m e nt is tru th f u l is a f a c tu a l f in d in g , w h ic h w e r e v ie w f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. B row nl ee , 2 0 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . H e r e , R a m i r e z - M a r t i ne z i ni t i a l l y t ol d the c our ttha the w a s i nvol ve d i n a conspi ra cyw i th an u nn am ed un cl e a nd cousi n. H ow ever , w hen p re ss ed t o i dent i fy the s e i ndi vi dua l s , he c ha nge d hi s s t ory a nd t ook the pos i t i on tha thi s c oconspi ra t ors w er e am an ca l l ed “ L a F ani a” i n B al t i m ore a nd se vera l un nam ed i ndi vi dua l s i n N e w Y or k. W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y he l d tha tw hi l e l i e s a nd om i s s i ons d o n o t a u to m a tic a lly d is q u a lif y a d e f e n d a n t f r o m s a f e ty v a lv e r e lie f

, a d e f e n d a n t's3

pri or l i es m aybe re l evantas "partof the t ot al m i x o f e vi dence for the di stri ctcourt to c o n s id e rin e v a lu a tin g th e c o m p le te n e s s a n d tru th f u ln e s s o f th e d e f e n d a n t's [fi n al ] p ro ffer. " I

d . ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . W e the r e f or e f i nd tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d R a m ir e z - M a r tin e z ’s p r io rf a ls e h o o d s in d e t e r m i n i n g th a th e wa s u n tru th f u l . F u r th e r , i n l i g h to f

th e s e e a r l i e rs t a t e m e n t s , we concl ud e thatR am i re z- M art i nez has no tm ethi s burden o f s ho w i ng thatthe di stri ct c l e a r l y e rr e d i n f

i n d i n g h i m i n e l i g i b l e f

o rs a f e ty - v a l v e r e l i e f

a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f irm . U ni te d State s v . Cr uz , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( f in d in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th e tru th f

u ln e s s o f h is s ta te m e n t) . Ra mi r e z - M a r t i n e z a l s o a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d i n d e n y i n g h i m a c o n t i n u a n c e t o s e e k f

u r th e re v i d e n t i a ry s u p p o r tf o rh i s s t a t e m e n t . We r e v i e w a di s tr i c tc our t ' s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o c ont i nue s e nt e nc i ng f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni ted Stat es v. L ee , 4 2 7 F .3 d 8 8 1 , 8 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 14 47 (200 6). T he defendanthas the bu rden t o d em on stra t e that"the deni al w as an ab u se o f d i scret i o n an d th ati tp ro d u ced sp eci fi c su b st an t i al p rej u d i ce. " U ni ted S ta te s v . Sm ith , 757 F . 2d 1161, 1166 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . F i r s t , w e r e j e c ta s i rr e l e va nt and u nsup po rt ed, R am i re z- M art i nez’ s a rgum entthatthe m ot i on w as deni ed because the di stri ctcourtw as i n a hu rry. S ec on d, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt th a t, in lig h t o f

R a m ir e z - M a r tin e z ’s r e p e a te d f a ls e s ta te m e n ts , a c o n tin u a n c e w o u ld4

on l y del aythe i nevi t abl e deni al of a s af ety- val ve re du ct i on . W e there fore fi nd that R am i rez-M art i n ez w as n o tp rej u d i ced b y th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n an d acco rd i n g l y, we a f f i r m th e d e c i s i o n b e l o w. AF F I RME D.