FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JULY 23, 2008 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. 07- 14144 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 07 -600 88 -C R -J IC 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 C H A V I S Y A 'M O N C R E W S , 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 r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 23, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C h a v is Y a ’m o n C r e w s a p p e a ls h is 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rp o s s e s s in g w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e 5 0 g r a ms o rmo r e o f c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ). C rew s arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rtcl earl y erred i n d en yi n g safet yva l ve r e l i e f

be c a us e he s a t i s f

i e d the c r i t e r i a s e touti n U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2. F orthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I. C r e w s w a s a r r e s t e d a nd c ha r ge d a f t e ra pol i c e of

f i c e r , r e s pondi ng t o a c om pl a i ntr e ga r di ng a c a rdr i ve n by C r e w s a nd i ndi c a t i ng tha tC r e w s s e e m e d t o be i nv ol ved i n a do m es t i c di sput e, se ar ched C re w s’ s per son and ca r, and d i sc ov er ed thr e e ba gs of

m a r i j ua na a nd $3, 701 i n c a s h on C r e w s ’ s pe r s on, a nd 133. 9 gr a m s of c r a c k c o c a in e a n d $ 3 5 ,8 9 2 in c a s h , s e p a r a te d in to $ 1 ,0 0 0 b u n d le s , in C r e w s ’s c a r . C re w s a dm i t t ed ow ners hi p o f the drug s a nd m on ey , cl ai m i ng thathe had o bt ai ned th e c ra ck co ca in e e ar li er in th e d ay an d th at th e m o n ey re p re se n ted h is li fe ’s sav i n g s. In a l at eri nt er vi ew w i th aut ho ri t i es , C re w s c l ai m ed thathe sa ved t he m on ey by sa vi ng $5 0 a day f

rom the $1 00 a day he ea rned w orki ng as a r oo fe r. H e had re ce i ved a cal l the m orni ng of hi s a rr es tt o t ra vel t o a nearby t ow n t o o bt ai n cra ck c o c a in e a n d s im p ly p u t th e m o n e y in q u e s tio n in h is c a rb e f o r e le a v in g . O n h is w a y h o m e , h e r e c e iv e d a c a ll f r o m h is g ir lf

r ie n d , w h ic h p r o m p te d h im to tr a v e l toA transc ript of, or notes f rom, this interview wa s not in the record. Rather, the 1 g overnme nt proffered the se statements at Crews’s sentencinghearing, a nd Crews did not object to the fac ts recited by

the g overnme nt. 3 th e lo c a tio n o f

th e u ltim a te d is tu rb a n c e a n d h is a r r e s t. 1 A tC r e w s ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove r nm e nta r gue d tha tC r e w s w a s not e l i gi bl e f ora tw o- l e ve l s a f

e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on f

orpr ovi di ng the gove r nm e ntw i th a tru th fu l an d co m p l et e acco u n to f h i s o ffen se, p u rsu an tt o § 2 D 1 . 1 (b )(9 ), b ecau se C re w s’ s c l ai m thatthe m on ey foun d i n h i s c arre pres ent ed hi s l i fe ’ s s avi ng s w as no ttruthful . S peci fi ca l l y, the go vernm entt oo k i ss ue w i th C re w s’ s dec i si on t o t ake $4 0, 00 0 o f hi s l i fe sa vi ng s w i th h i m t o o bt ai n a re l at i vel y s m al l am ou ntof cr ac k co cai n e. In resp o n se, C rew s t est i fi ed as fo l l o w s. H e began savi ng the m on ey w hen h e w as a t ee nager and w as no w 26 ye ar s o ld . T h e r o o f

in g c o m p a n y th a t h e w o r k e d f o rp a id h im $ 1 0 0 in c a s h p e rd a y . C re w s tri ed t o save $50 a day , and, as soon as C re w s r ea ched $1 , 00 0, he w rapp ed thos e bi l l s i n a rubbe rba nd a nd s e tthe m a s i de . H e ke ptthe i ndi vi dua l “ s t a c ks ” i n a pl as t i c bag. C re w s neverdecl ar ed thi s m on ey as i ncom e. H e i nt ended t he m on ey f ora “ r a i ny da y [ ] ” a nd di d notke e p i ti n a ba nk a c c ountbe c a us e he w a s a f r a i d of th e I n te r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v ic e . O n th e d a y o f h is a r r e s t, h e to o k th e a p p r o x im a te ly $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 w ith h im to p u r c h a s e a r e la tiv e ly s m a ll a m o u n t o f c r a c k , w h ic h u ltim a te ly c os tonl y $2, 700, f

or“ no pa r t i c ul a rr e a s on, l i ke [ he ] j us tha d i ton [ hi m ] a tthe4

ti m e. . . [a n d ] b ro u g h t i t o u t [o f] th e h o u se th at m o rn in g .” It “[m ]ayb e [ w as ] a show bo ati ss ue. ” W hi l e the approx i m at el y $3, 00 0 sei ze d from hi s per son w as part of hi s “ ra i ny day” st as h, he had separa t ed i tfr om the re stand p uti ti n h i s pocket th a tm o r n i n g f

o r“ n o p a r t i c u l a rr e a s o n ” a n d t o “ a d d i tu p . ” T h e m o n e y th a tC r e ws used t o p urchas e the cr ac k cocai ne never w as a par tof thi s s t as h. T hi s m on ey w as earn ed fro m sel l i n g d ru g s. O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, C r e w s t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d be e n s e l l i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne fo r ap p ro x i m at el y th ree years, bu to n l y w h en “ si tu at i o n s [g o t ] ro u g h . ” G en eral l y, h e p u rch ased fi v e o u n ces o f crack co cai n e, b ro k e i td o w n i n t o i n d i v i d u al p i eces, a n d s o ld th e p ie c e s f

o ra to ta l in c o m e o f

$ 8 0 0 . H e h a d b e e n w o r k in g f o rh is c ur r e ntr oof

i ng c om pa ny f

ora ppr oxi m a t e l y thr e e y e a r s . H e w or ke d be tw e e n f i ve and si x d ay s a w ee k. B ef ore that , he w orked “ l i t t l e j ob s” and ata dog tra ck. W hen he t ook the m one y w i th hi m t o pur c ha s e c r a c k c oc a i ne , he w a s noti n da nge rof bei ng robb ed of t he m on ey beca use he di d n oti nt end t o sho w anybod y thathe had i t . O n r e di r e c t , C r e w s t e s t i f i e d tha tpa r tof

the s t a s h, ora ppr oxi m a t e l y $15, 000, p r o b a b ly w a s “d ru g r e la te d m o n e y .” T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the sa fe ty- val ve re du ct i on . T he courtfoun d t hat C re w s’ s t es t i m on y l ac ked credi bi l i ty a nd st at ed, “ T here ’ s no d ou bti n m y m i nd that thatm on ey ca m e f

rom drug s. I c an’ tbe any c l ea re r than t hat . ” T he di stri ctcourt5

th en n o t ed th atth e st atu t o ry m i n i m u m t erm o f i m p ri so n m en tfo r C rew s’ s o ffen se wa s 1 0 y e a r s , p u r s u a n tt o 2 1 U. S . C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) , a n d s e n t e n c e d C r e ws a c c o r d in g ly . II. W hen revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s s af ety- val ve deci si on , w e r evi ew fa ctual de t e r m i na t i ons f

orc l e a re r r ora nd l e ga l c onc l us i ons de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l ki nt a s , 470 F . 3d 1339, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . W e ha ve he l d tha t , i n c onduc t i ng o u rr e v ie w , w e “s h a ll g iv e d u e r e g a r d to th e o p p o r tu n ity o f th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t to j udge the c r e di bi l i ty of

the w i tne s s e s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G l i nt on, 154 F . 3d 1245, 12 58 -59 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). P ursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 2(a) , the di stri ctcourt“ shal l i m po se a s ent ence i n acc ordance w i th t he appl i ca bl e gui del i nes w i tho utre gard t o any st atut ory m i ni m um se nt ence ” i f i tfi nd s thatthe defendantsa t i sf i es the “ sa fe ty- val ve” c r i t e r i a . L i ke w i s e , pur s ua ntt o § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 9) , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d a ppl y a tw ol ev el red u ct i o n t o a d efen d an t ’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el i f th e d efen d an tm eet s th ese c r ite r ia . T h e s e c r ite r ia r e q u ir e in p a r t th a t, no tl at erthan t he t i m e of the se nt enci ng hear i ng , the defendanthas truthful l y provi ded t o t he G ov ernm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence the de f e nda ntha s c onc e r ni ng the of f e ns e orof

f e ns e s tha tw e r e pa r tof the s a m e c our s e of

c onduc torof

a c om m on s c he m e orpl a n, butthe f a c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s n o r e le v a n t o ru s e f u l o th e rin f

o r m a tio n to pr ovi de ortha tthe G ove r nm e nti s a l r e a dy a w a r e of the i nf or m a t i onAlthough thediscussion at sentencingfocuse d on the two-leve l reduc tion afforded 2 under § 2D 1.1(b)( 9), wealso haveconsidere d the re lief from the statutory minimumaff

orded under § 5C1.2. B eca

use the statutory

minimumof 120 months’ imprisonment ex cee ds the gre ate st t e rm

of Cr e ws ’s guid e lin eimp ri so nment rang e , o r 8 7 a nd 10 8 mo nth s, theon ly

be ne fi t safe ty-valvesentenc ing c ould confe r on Crew s is that afforded by § 5C1.2. F or thefirs t ti meon

a pp e a l, C rews argue s th at th ere c ord madec le ar t hat hec arrie d h is 3 lif e savin g s w ithhim

be c a us ehedid

no t f e e l c omf or ta blele avin gthemon e y

at ho mewi th h is g irlfriend, w ith whom he was feuding. A side from the lateness of this claim, it is not supported by the re cord. Crews told authorities that he dec ided to take the money with him in the morning and only later rece ived a c all from his g irlfriend a nd beca me entang led in a dispute with her. 6 shal l no tprec l ud e a det er m i nat i on by the courtthatthe defendanthas c o m p lie d w ith th is r e q u ir e m e n t. U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2( a ) ( 5) . T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s s a t i s f

a c t i on of thi s c r i t e r i on a nd ul t i m a t e e l i gi bi l i ty f ors a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

. M i l ki nt a s , 470 F . 3d a t1345. 2 III. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n d enyi ng sa fe ty- val ve se nt enci ng . S ee M ilk in ta s , 4 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 3 . W h ile C r e w s in s is te d th a t th e m o n e y s e iz e d f r o m h is c a rr e pr e s e nt e d hi s l i f

e ’ s s a vi ngs , he f

a i l e d t o pr ovi de a r e a s on w hy he t ook the m one y w i th hi m t o obt a i n c r a c k c oc a i ne . A l though he i ni t i a l l y s t a t e d tha the t ook the m one y f

orthe purpos e s of

“ s how boa t [ i ng] , ” he l a t e rs t a t e d tha the di d not i nt end t o sho w i tt o anyon e. L i kew i se , al tho ug h h e i ni t i al l y i nsi st ed thatthe m on ey w as no tderi ved from drug sa l es , he l at erst at ed thatperhaps $15 , 00 0 o f i tw as drug- r e l a t e d m one y . T he i nc ons i s t e nc i e s of C r e w s s t or i e s , c oupl e d w i th hi s t oo- 3O n a ppe a l , C r e ws br i e f l y ment i o ns t ha the i s e l i g i bl e f o rr e - s e nt e nc i ng pur s ua ntt o A m e ndm e nt 4 7 0 6 of N ovem b er20 0 7 , by w h i ch t h e Sen t enci n g C om m i ss i on app r oved a t w o- l evel r edu ct i on f orcr ackco ca in e se n ten ce s, w h ich w as m ad e re troa ctive in D ec em b er 2 0 0 7 as M arc h 3 , 2 0 0 8 . We d e c lin e to a d d re ss th is is su e in th e in sta n t ap p e a l be c a us e C r e ws maymov e f o rr e l i e f unde rA m e ndm e nt706 by wayo f a mot i o n unde r18 U. S.C. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). 7 l at e ad m i ssi o n th ata p o rt i o n o f th e rai n y d ay st ash d eri v ed fro m d ru g sal es, prov i ded am pl e r ea son for the di stri ctcourt ’ s dou bt . G i ven t hi s, and t he defer ence d u e th e d istrict co u rt’s fin d in g o n C re w s’s c re d ib il ity, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of s a f e ty - va l ve s e nt e nc i ng. S e e G l i nt on, 154 F . 3d a t1258- 59. 4 AF F I RME D.