2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-6-2007 

# U SA v . V ele z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2435

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . V e lez " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 622. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/622T h e H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 04- 2435

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GI LBERTO VELEZ, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00696- 2) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I

___________ Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 24, 2007 B E F O R E : S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, F U E N T E S and A L A R C Ó N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2007)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________-2-

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Gi l b e r t o Ve l e z p l e a d e d g u i l t yt o p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e f i v e k i l o g r a ms orm or e of c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , an off ens e w hi ch carr i es a mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence of 120 m ont hs i n pr i s on. A ts ent enci ng, t he g o v ern m en t op p o sed ap p li ca ti o n o f th e “ saf etyv alve ” p rov isi o n , 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (f), p u rsua n t t o w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtco u ld h av e im p o sed a se n tenc e b elow the s tatu tory m i ni m um . T he governm entar gued thatV el ez ha d been untrut hful i n pr offe r i ng i nfor m at i on r egar di ng t he ci r cumst ance s of hi s offe ns e. A ft erdefe ns e couns el conce ded t o t he governm ent ’ s ar gum ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed the mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence , w i t houtappl y i ng t he s afe t yval ve. O n appea l , V el ez a r gues t hatt he D i s t r i ct Co u r te r r e d i n d o i n g s o . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. O n O ct ober1, 2003, a fe der al drug enfor cementt as k for ce r ece i ved i nfor m at i on th a t co c a in e h a d b e e n sm u g g led a b o a rd a f lig h t f ro m S a n Ju a n , P u e rto R ico to Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a. T as k for ce a gent s s t at i oned atPhi l adel phi a I nt ernat i onal A i rpor tobs erved V el ez’ s co- defe ndant , D avi d E s pi nos a- C ruz, cl ai m t w o m at chi ng s ui t cas es fr om t he bagga ge ar ea. E s pi nos a cons ent ed t o ques t i oni ng byt he age nt s and a llo w e d th e m to o p e n h is s u itc a s e s , w h ic h c o n ta in e d o v e r f o rt yk ilo g ra m s o f

c o c a in e . W hi l e i n cus t ody , E s pi nos a r ece i ved a c al l on hi s cel l ul arphone fr om V el ez, w hom a g e n ts lo c a ted a n d a p p ro a c h e d o u tsid e th e ter m in a l. V e lez c o n se n ted to a se a rc h o f h isT o b e e lig ib le f o r th e sa f

e tyv a lv e , a d e f

e n d a n t m u st e sta b lish th a t: 1 ( 1) t he def

endantdoes nothave mor e than 1 cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt , as -3- t w o s ui t cas es , w hi ch cont ai ned appr oxi m at el yfor t y - s i x ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. O n O c to b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , V e lez m a d e a p ro f f e r o f in f o rm a tio n to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w hich the g ov ernm ent s um m ari zed at s entenci ng as fol l ow s: M r . V el ez ha d m eta man i n a bari n Puer t o R i c[o] . . . . M r . V el ez made a comm entt hathe nee ded money . M r . V el ez doe s notknow t he fi r s tname, th e las t n a m e o r th e n ick n a m e f o r th e m a n . . . . M r. V e lez g a v e h im h is ce ll u lar t elep h o n e n u m b er. T w o day s l at er , M r . V el ez r ece i ved a phone cal l . T he per s on on t he phone w as nott he man he had meti n t he bar , buta s econd pe r s on. T hat per s on t ol d hi m abouta tr i p t hathe coul d t ake. M r . V el ez w as notpr ovi ded a tic k e t . . . . H e h a d to p a yf o r h is tic k e t b yh im s e lf

. . . . M r . V el ez w as as ked w her e he w oul d be s t ay i ng i n Phi l adel phi a and [w hom ] he w as m eet i ng. H e s t at ed thathe di d notknow w ho he w as goi ng t o be meet i ng . . . . H e s ai d t hathe s i m pl yw as goi ng t o go t o anyhot el and w ai tfora phone c al l on hi s cel l ul art el ephone. H e s ai d he di d notknow h o w h e w a s g o in g to b e p a id . H e d id n o t hav e a p h o n e n u m b er f o r an yo f th ese p eo p le . . . . [H ]e w a s ju st g o in g to b a sic a llytru st th e se p e o p le to p a yh im w h e n h e re tu rn e d to Puer t o R i co. A pp. 32a- 33a. V el ez l at erpl eade d gui l t yt o pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f

c o c a in e in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ) a n d (b )( 1 )( A ). A ts ent enci ng, t he governm entoppos ed appl i cat i on of the s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on, 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) , beca us e i thad conc l uded thatV el ez’ s pr offe r ed s t at ementw as not cr edi bl e. I n r es pons e t o t he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on, defe ns e couns el s t at ed: “[o] n t he

1determ i ned un der the sentenci ng gu i deli nes;

( 2) t he def

endantdi d notus e vi ol ence orcr edi bl e thr eat s of vi ol ence or pos s es s a fi r earm orot herdanger ous w eapon ( ori nduce a not herpar t i ci pant t o do s o) i n connec t i on w i t h t he off ens e; ( 3) t he off

ens e di d notr es ul ti n death ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yt o anyper s on; ( 4) t he def

endantw as notan or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , ors upervi s orof ot her s i n t he off

ens e, as det erm i ned undert he s ent enci ng gui del i nes and w as notengage d i n a cont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e, as defi ned i n [21 U . S. C . § 848] ; and ( 5) notl at ert han the t i m e of the s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he def endanthas t rut hful l ypr ovi ded t o t he G overnm ental l i nfor m at i on and evi dence t he d e f e n d a n th a s c o n c e r n i n g t h e o f f e n s e o ro f

f e n s e s t h a twe r e p a r to f

t h e s a me cour s e of c onductorof a c om m on s cheme orpl an, butt he fa ctt hatt he defe ndanthas no r el evantorus eful ot heri nfor m at i on t o pr ovi de ort hatt he G overnm enti s al r eadyaw ar e of the i nfor m at i on s hal l notpr ecl ude a d e ter m in a tio n b yth e c o u rt th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a s c o m p lied w ith th is re q u ire m e n t. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (f). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 2 U ni t ed St at es v. B at i s t a D e La C ruz, 460 F. 3d 466, 468 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo and f actual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. Sabi r , 117 F. 3d 7 5 0 , 7 5 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). -4- i s s ue of the s afe t yval ve, I have di s cus s ed w i t h m ycl i entt hati ti s hi s r i ghtt o t ake the s t and t odayand convi nce y ou t hatt he G overnm enti s w r ong i n notbel i evi ng hi s acc ount t hatl ed t o t hi s offe ns e and how i tw as carr i ed out . A nd he has decl i ned t o do s o, acc ept i ng t he j udgm entof the G overnm entt hatt heys i m pl ydi d notbel i eve hi s s t or y . ” A pp. 34a- 35a. W i t houtappl y i ng t he s afe t yval ve, t her efor e, t he C our ts ent ence d V el ez t o t he m andat or ym i ni m um of 120 m ont hs i n pr i s on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 2 II.V el ez a l s o ar gues on appea l t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l ycons i der ed the 3 s e nt e nc i ng gu i de l i ne s t o b e mand a t ory , i n v i ol a t i on of U ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). H o w ev er, V elez w as se n tenc ed to the statu torym inim u m u n d er § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; w e ther efor e r ej ectt hi s cont ent i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 464 F . 3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thata def endantw ho w ai ves a know n r i ghtcannots eek 4 r el i ef on thati s s ue on appe al . See, e. g. , V i r gi n I s l ands v. R os a, 399 F. 3d 283, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K i kum ur a, 947 F. 2d 72, 77 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . Fur t herm or e, V e lez d o e s n o t p o in t o u t “w h a t in f o rm a tio n [ h e ] c o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d ” to th e g o v e rn m e n t,

-5- O n a p p e a l, V e lez a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to a p p lyth e sa f

e ty val ve pr ovi s i on i n arr i vi ng athi s s ent ence . H e cont ends t hat“the onl yi nfor m at i on of r ecor d r egar di ng [hi s ] i nt ervi ew w i t h governm entcouns el and age nt s w as t hatw hi ch w as pr ovi ded bygovernm entcouns el . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at25. H e al s o ar gues t hathe w as

“ u n f a irlyd e p riv e d o f

a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto re c e iv e [ th e ] b e n e f it” o f th e sa f e ty val ve, beca us e he w as not“ful l yi nfor m ed as t o the r equi r ement s of the s afe t yval ve. ” I d. at32, 29. Fort hes e r eas ons , he ar gues , w e mustr emand forr e- s ent enci ng. W e di s agr ee. 3 T hatt he “onl yi nfor m at i on” r egar di ng t he ver aci t yof V el ez’ s pr offe rcame fr om t he governm entdoes notm ean thatr emand i s r equi r ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded V el ez a n oppor tuni t yt o cont es tt he governm ent ’ s char act er i zat i on of hi s pr offe r , but V el ez e xpl i ci t l ydecl i ned t o do s o. I n r es pons e t o t he governm ent ’ s char act er i zat i on, defe ns e couns el s t at ed thatV el ez “ acc ept [ed] t he j udgm entof the G overnm entt hatt hey sim p lyd id n o t b e liev e h is s to ry .” A p p . at 3 5 a . H a v in g d e c lin e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto co n testthe g o v ern m en t’ s p o sit ion at sen tenc ing , V elez ca n n o t no w fa u ltthe D istri ct C o u rt forconcl udi ng t hathe “di d notcooper at e w i t h t he G overnm ent . ” A pp. at39a. 4i f any , had he be en “f ul l yi nfor m ed as t o t he r equi r ement s of the s afe t yval ve. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at31, 29. -6- Fur t herm or e, t he r ecor d contr adi ct s V el ez’ s cl ai m t hathe w as unaw ar e of the re q u ire m e n ts o f

th e sa f e tyv a lv e p ro v isio n . A s th e g o v e rn m e n t sta ted a t se n ten c in g , it addr es s ed the appl i cabi l i t yof the s afe t yval ve thr oughoutt he pr ocee di ngs — forexampl e, i n i t s pl ea mem or andum fi l ed i n Februaryof 2004, and i n i t s s ent enci ng m emora ndum fi l ed i n M ayof 2004. I n addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade s ur e thatV el ez unde r s t ood t he bas i s forhi s s ent ence byt aki ng t i m e t o have the pr e- s ent enci ng r epor t , w hi ch rec o m m en d ed ag ains t app li ca ti o n o f th e sa fe tyv alve , tr an slat ed into S p an ish. T h e C o u rt t hen conf

i r m ed both t hatV el ez unde r s t ood w hatt he r epor ts ai d and thathe had no o b jec tio n s to it. F i nall y , i n respon se t o the gov ernm ent’ s posi t i on on t he safetyvalve, defe nse c o u n se l sta ted b e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt th a t “I h a v e d isc u ss e d w ith m yc lien t th a t itis h is r i ghtt o t ake the s t and t odayand convi nce y ou t hatt he G overnm enti s w r ong i n not b eli ev ing h is acc o u n t. . . [a ]nd h e h as d ec li n ed to d o so . ” A p p . at 34 a-3 5 a. W e the ref o re r ej ectV el ez’ s cont ent i on t hathe w as notadequa t el yi nfor m ed of the r equi r ement s of the s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence .