# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 34 68

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Vio le ta Hin ojo sa , als o k no wn as So ph ie

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 3
Fil ed : Au gu st 27 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, BEAM, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Vio le ta Hin ojo sa ap pe al s, fo ll owi ng a gu il ty jury ve rd ic t on two

c o u n t s

– c o n s p i r a c y t o d i s t r i b u t e me t h a mp h e t a mi n e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f

m et ha m ph et am in e– arg ui ng th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t. Atse nt en ci ng Hin ojo sa so ug ht sa fet y va lv e rel ie f, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. Sh e 1

ap pe al s t hi s d en ia l as well . W e aff irm Hin ojo sa 's c on vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e.

I. BACKGRO UND

Dur in g th e co ur se of an ex te nsi ve m et ha m ph et am in e di st rib ut io n in ve st ig at io n,

of fic ers id en ti fie d Hin ojo sa as so m eo ne who de li ve red m et ha m ph et am in e to a de al er

u n d e r in ve st ig at io n. Eli zab et h W hi te

, a dr ug us er rece nt ly rel eas ed fro m pr is on , be ga n as si st in g dr ug en fo rcem en t ag en ts in th e in ve st ig at io n in Mar ch 20 09

. On
Apr il 17

, 20 09

, W hi te pa rti ci pa te d in a co nt r o l l e d bu y an d wen t to th e ho m e of

Mi gu el Cas ta ne da to pu rch as e met ha m ph et am in e. Cas ta ne da 's ho m e was un de r

of fic er su rv ei ll an ce at th e ti m e. Dur in g th is ti m e pe rio d, a wom an , id en ti fie d at tri al
by se ve ral wit ne ss es as Hin ojo sa , dr ov e up to C a s t an ed a's ho us e an d en te red an d

e x i te d th e res id en ce wit hi n a few m in ut es ' ti m e. The go ve rn m en t al le ge d t h a t

Hin ojo sa de li ve red m et ha m ph e t a mi n e at th at ti m e. Offi cers arre st ed Hin ojo sa an d

ch arg ed he r wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e , a nd di st rib ut io n of

m et ha m ph et am in e. The ju ry

co nv ic te d Hi no

jos a o n b ot h c ou nt s.

Pri or to se nt en ci ng , Hin ojo sa pr ov id ed an in te rv ie w to la w en fo rcem en t

of fic ers

. Bas ed up on th is in te rv ie w, du rin g whi ch Hin ojo sa de ni ed al l in vo lv em en t

in th e m at te r, Hin ojo sa so ug ht sa fe t y v a l v e rel ie f at se nt en ci ng , whi ch th e co ur t

de ni ed . The d is tri ct co ur t s ta te d:

I do n't wan t to sa y th at as a m at te r of la w if so m eo ne is co nv i c t ed an d
do es no t ackn owl ed ge th ei r gu il t i n t he sa fet y va lv e in te rv ie w th at th at

pr ecl ud es th at pe rs on fro m ob ta in in g th e sa fet y va lv e, bu t it cert ai n l y

m ak es it ve ry di ffi cu lt fo r th at pe rs on to ob ta in [th e] rel ie f of th e sa fet y

va lv e be cau se on e of th e pr im ary pu rp os es of th e sa fet y va lv e is to sh ow

The Ho no rab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-th at th at pe rs on is co nt rit e an d at le as t ha s an at te m pt to co op erat e or be
ho ne st ab ou t wh at th ey

were i nv ol ve d wi th

.

Bu t g iv en th e te st im on y

an d th e ev id en ce tha t's be en pre se nt ed , I do n't
th in k t ha t th e

. . . d efen da nt ha s su st ai ne d he r bu rd en of pr oo f to sh ow th at sh e's en ti tl ed to t h e sa fet y va lv e. And th e m ai n reas on ha s to do
wit h t he pro ffer

.

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Hin ojo sa to 60 m on th s' im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

Hin ojo sa ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e ve rd ic t an d th e
di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of s afet y va lv e rel ie f.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng a co nv ic ti on de

no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Ph y th ia n, 52 9 F.3d 80 7, 81 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). "'[W] e rev ers e

on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t.'" Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pru ne da

, 51 8 F.3 d 59 7,

60 5 (8t h Cir. 20 08 )). On ap pe al , th e ev id en ce i s v ie wed in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le

to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng ev id en ti ary co nf li ct s i n f a vo r of th e go ve rn m en t an d

acce pt in g al l reas on ab le i n f e r en ces dr awn fro m th e ev id en ce th at su pp or t th e jury's

ve rd ic t. Un it ed Sta te s v . Flo res , 47 4 F .3d 11 00 , 11 05 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Very ge ne ral ly, Hin ojo sa arg ue s o n a p p e a l th at th is cas e is ba se d up on

m is id en ti fic at io n. Sh e cl ai m s t h a t h er si st er an d he r m ot he r are in vo lv ed in dr ug

tra ffi ck in g bu t th at sh e is no t an d ne ve r ha s be en

. Sh e cl ai m s th at th os e who te st ifi ed

ag ai ns t he r, id en ti fy in g he r as on e who de li ve red m et ha m ph et am in e to Cas ta ne da on

m ul ti pl e oc cas io ns ov er ti m e, al l te st ifi ed in an at te m pt to red uc e th ei r own se nt en ces

or si m il ar s uc h b en efi ts an d a re thu s un rel ia bl e. Sh e fu rth er clai m s th at th e of fic ers

-3

-who id en ti fie d he r in ph ot og rap hs ta ke n du rin g a de li ve ry at th e ho m e of Cas ta ne da

were m is ta ke n an d th at th ey di d no t ha ve a cl ear vi ew of he r, whi ch Hin ojo sa cl ai m s

rai se s s ig ni fic an t do ub t th at it was in fact Hin ojo sa an d n ot he r si st er t ha t t he y saw.

Hin ojo s a i s u na bl e to ov erco m e he r bu rd en on ap pe al

. Thre e co op erat in g
wit ne ss es te st ifi ed th ey sa w Hin ojo sa de li ve rin g m et ha m ph et am in e ov er an ex te nd ed

pe rio d of ti m e, in co nc ert w i t h on e or m or e of he r fam il y m em be rs

. Cas ta ne da

te st ifi ed th at Hin ojo sa an d her fam il y m em be rs were hi s pr im ary m et ha m ph et am in e

su pp li ers fo r ne arl y fiv e y ears

. The ci rcu m st an ces of th e co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry on Apr il

17

, 20 09

, as ex pl ai ne d th ro ug h th e te st im on y of th e Dru g Enfo r c em en t

Adm in is tra ti on ag e n ts in vo lv ed

, fu rth er co rro bo rat ed th e tri al te st im on y of th e

co op erat in g wit ne ss es

. And

, whi le th ere were, as al way s, cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns

to be m ad e reg ard in g th e te st ifyin g wit ne ss es , th ei r te st im on y was co rro bo rat ed an d,

ul ti m at el y , be li ev ed by th e jury. Uni te d Stat es v. Jeff ers on , No. 12 -2 64 3, 20 13 W L

39 70 19 3, at *2 (8 th Ci r. Aug

. 5, 20 13 ) ("'We ha ve rep eat ed l y up he ld jury ve rd ic ts

ba se d so le ly on t he tes ti m on y of co -co ns pi rat or s an d co op erat in g wit ne ss es , n ot in g

th at it is wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of the jury to m ak e cred ib il it y as se ss m en ts an d res ol ve

co nf li ct in g te st im on y .'" (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Co le m an , 5 25 F.3 d 66 5, 66 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 )). On th es e fact s, we ha ve no di f fic ul ty co nc lu di ng th e ev id en ce was

su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so na bl e jury to fi nd Hin ojo sa gu il ty.

B. Sa fety Val ve Reli ef

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws fo r cl ear erro r a di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng s reg ard in g th e

co m pl et en es s an d tru th f

u l ne ss of in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by a de fen da nt an d th e
ul ti m at e de ni al of sa fet y va lv e rel ie f fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Po lk

, 71 5 F.3 d

23 8, 2 53 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) . The s en te nc in g c ou rt h ere d id no t cl earl y err.

"In th e sa fet y va lv e st at ut e an d pa ral le l ad vi so ry gu i d e l i ne s pr ov is io n,

'Co ng res s pro vi de d re li ef for les s cul pa bl e dr ug of fen de rs fro m it s hars h m an da to ry

-4

-m in im

um se nt en ces .'" Uni te d St at es v. Broo ks

, No. 12 -3 58 8, 20 13 W L 37 46 02 6, at

*2 (8 th Ci r. Ju ly 18

, 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Tou rn ie r, 17 1 F.3 d 64 5, 64 6 (8 th

Ci r. 19 99 )). "To be el ig ib le fo r th is st at ut or y rel ie f, [Hin ojo sa ] 'bo re th e bu rd en at th e

se nt en ci ng he ari ng of es ta bl is hi ng each of th e fiv e req ui rem en ts fo r sa fet y va lv e rel ie f
by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Raz o- Gue rra, 53 4 2

F.3 d 97 0, 97 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). The si gn ifi can t is su e in th is cas e is whe th er Hin ojo sa

sa ti sf ie d th e fif

th el em en t, req ui rin g th a t n o t l a t er th an th e ti m e of th e se nt en ci ng
he ari ng , sh e tru th fu ll y pr ov id ed to th e go ve rn m en t al l in fo rm at io n an d ev id en ce sh e

ha d con cern in g th e of

fen se or of

fen se s th at were pa rt of th e sa m e co ur se of co nd uc t

or of a co m

m on sch em e o r pl an . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f)(5 ).

Hin ojo sa si m

pl ifi es th e di st ric t c ou rt' s st an ce on th is fin al el em en t, cl ai m in g

th at th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Hin ojo sa co ul d no t ge t sa fet y va lv e rel ie f so le ly

be cau se th e jury fo un d her gu il ty. A fai r read in g of the tra ns cri pt

, ho wev er, revea ls

th at th e di st ric t co ur t fu ll y un de rs to od th e le ga l ru br ic in th e sa fet y va lv e co nt ex t. As

th e co ur t no te d, it is tru e th at a gu il ty jury ve r d i c t do es no t le ga ll y fo recl os e an y

po ss ib il it y th at a de fen da nt co ul d rece iv e sa fet y va lv e rel ie f. Uni te d St at es v. Sh erp a,

11 0 F.3 d 65 6, 66 0 (9 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Acco rd in g to th e tra ns cri pt

, ho wev er, th e di st ric t

W e h av e ex pl ai ne d t ha t 2

[ t ]h e sa fet y va lv e req ui res th at : (1 ) th e de fen da nt do es no t ha ve mo r e th an on e c riminal hi st or y po in t; (2 ) th e de fen da nt di d no t us e vi ol en ce

or a cred ib l e t h r e a t th ereo f or po ss es s a da ng ero us weap on in th e

co m m is si on of th e cri m e; (3 ) th e of fen se di d no t res ul t in an y on e's de at h

or s e r i o u s in

jury; (4 ) th e de fen da nt was no t an or ga ni zer, le ad er,

m an ag er, or su pe rv is or of ot he rs in th e of fen se ; an d (5 ) no t la te r th an th e ti m e of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e de fen da nt ha s tru th fu ll y pr ov id ed to th e go ve rn m en t al l in fo rm at io n an d ev id en ce th e de fen da n t ha s

co nc ern in g t he off

en se

.

Uni te d St at es v. Garci a, 67 5 F.3 d 10 91

, 10 94 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

-5

-c o u r t was well -ap pr is ed of th is juri sp ru de nc e. The di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th at a

de fen da nt who de ni es gu il t in th e face of a gu il ty ve rd ic t is no t th er e b y p r e c l u d e d

fro m sa fet y va lv e el ig ib il it y "as a mat t e r of la w." On th e m eri ts

, th e co ur t

ap pr op ria te ly vi ewed th e tri al te st im on y , i n c lu di ng th at of th e th ree co op erat in g
wit ne ss es an d th e g o v e r n m en t ag en ts th at te st ifi ed

, as well as th e ev id en ce an d

arg um en ts pr es en te d at se nt en ci ng co nc ern in g Hin ojo sa 's an d he r fam il ie s'

pa rti ci pa ti on in dr ug tra ffi ck in g, in li gh t o f H i n o jo sa 's de ni al of in vo lv em en t

al to ge th er, an d arri ve d at it s de te rm in at io n th at sh e was no t eli gi bl e fo r sa fet y va lv e
rel ie f:

Bu t g iv en th e te st im on y an d t he ev id en ce tha t's be en pr es en te d, I d on 't
th in k th at th e

. . . d efen da nt ha s su st ai ne d he r bu rd en of pro of to sh ow th at sh e's en ti tl ed to th e sa fet y va lv e. An d th e m ai n reas on ha s to do
wit h t he pro ffer

.

The di st ric t co ur t d id no t cl earl y err i n t hi s co nc lu si on

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed he rei n, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-