FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 11091 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 3 6 5 - C R - T - 2 4 - T GW 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 F A B I A N G O N Z A L 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 13, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F abi a n G onz a l e z appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd 120- m onth s e nt e nc e f or( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) ( I I ) , 8 4 6 , a n d ( 2 ) a tte m p t to p o s s e s s w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f

i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) ( I I ) , 8 4 6 . G o n z a le z c o n te n d s th a t ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t e rr e d in denyi ng a s af

ety val ve re du ct i on ; (2) the di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a tw o-l evel f i r e a rm e nha nc e m e nt ; a nd ( 3) hi s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e s the E x P os tF a c t o C l a us e a nd th e D u e Pr o c e s s Cl a u s e i n l i g h to f U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S. C t . 73 8 (20 05 ). F ir s t, w e a d d r e s s G o n z a le z ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d en yin g a s af

ety- v alv e r ed u ctio n . W e r ev iew fo r c learer ro r th e d istrict co u rt’s f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons i n i t s de c i s i on t o de ny s a f e ty va l ve r e l i e f

. J ohns on, 375 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 . T h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s p r o v id e th a t if th e d e f e n d a n t m e e ts a ll f i ve c r i t e r i ai n U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2( a ) , he i s e nt i t l e d t o atw o- l e ve l s a f e ty - va l ve de c r e a s e of

hi s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l . U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 7) . T he de f e nda ntha s the b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g th a t h e m e e ts a ll f iv e c r ite r iaf

o rth e s a f e ty v a lv e r e d u c tio n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 375 F . 3d 1300, 1302 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . T o m e e tthe cr i t er i a und erS ec t i on 5C 1. 2(a) “ no tl at erthan the t i m e of the se nt enci ng hear i ng , ” the de f e nda ntm us ttruthf

ul l y pr ovi de t o the gove rnm e nta l l e vi de nc e a nd3

i nf orm a t i on he ha s c onc e rni ng the of f e ns e . U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2( a ) ( 5) ; s e e a l s o 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f

) ( 1 ) - ( 5 ) . S p e c if

ic a lly , h e h a s “a n a f

f irm a tiv e r e s p o n s ib ility to truthful l y di sc l ose t o the go vernm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence thathe has abou tthe offens e a nd al l re l evantcond uct . ” J oh nson , 37 5 F . 3d at13 02 (i nt ernal c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T hi s r e qui r e m e nti s m or e tha n m e r e a c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ility : it “is a ‘te ll- a ll ’ pr ovi s i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y a t e , 176 F . 3d 1309, 1 3 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . G on za l ez di d n otpres entany e vi dence t o the di stri ctcourtt o sho w he m et th e c r ite r iao f

th e s a f e ty - v a lv e r e d u c tio n . G o n z a le z c o n te n d s th a t th e c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t h e w a s n o t e n title d to a s a f e ty - v a lv e r e d u c tio n , b e c a u s e th e c o u r t d id no tqu es t i on G on za l ez t o m ake acr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on and d i d n otm ake a f a c tua l f i ndi ng aboutw he the rthe i nf orm a t i on he ha d pr ovi de d t o l a w e nf or c e m e nt w as truthful . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n ref usi ng t o g ra ntG on za l ez a safety-v al v e red u ct i o n . H e h ad th e b u rd en o f d em o n strat i n g th ath e m etth e safetyval ve cr i t er i a, and h e f

ai l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence about the i nform at i on he had d is c lo s e d to th e g o v e rn m e n t. S e e J o h n s o n , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 2 . A l though the gove rnm e ntw a s notr e qui r e d t o, i tpr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of A gentJul i o L i m a, w ho st at ed thatG on za l ez had n otbeen truthful because he had a tte m p te d to m in im iz e h is r o le in th e o f f e n s e a n d c a s t g r e a te rb la m e o n h is4

codefendant s. G on za l ez ’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otm ake afa ctual fi nd i ng as t o w hether G on za l ez had b ee n truthful fa i l s, because the courtcr edi t ed the i nf orm a t i on A ge ntL i m apr ovi de d t o the c our tw hi l e i m pl i c i t l y r e j e c t i ng G o n z a le z ’s a tto rn e y ’s u n s u b s ta n tia te d a r g u m e n t th a t G o n z a le z h a d b e e n tru th f u l. C ontr a ry t o G onz a l e z ’ s a s s e r t i on, the di s tr i c tc our ti s notr e qui r e d t o que s t i on de f e nda nt s t o t e s tthe i rc r e di bi l i ty . G onz a l e z c oul d ha ve c hos e n t o t e s t i f y a tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng or otherw i se i nd i ca t e thatthe fa ct s a s A gentL i m a had pres ent ed th e m w e r e in c o rr e c t. H e d id n o t. G on za l ez nextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a tw o-l evel w eapo n enh ance m ent . A nyon e w ho vi ol at es 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a ) s hal l be se nt ence d a s f ol l ow s : i f

the vi ol a t i on i nvol ve d “ 5 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of a m i xtur e or s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng ade t e c t abl e a m ountof [ c oc a i ne ] . . . s uc h pe r s on s ha l l be se nt ence d t o a t erm of i m pri sonm entw hi ch m ayno tbe l es s than 1 0 yea rs or m ore th a n lif e .” 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . E ve n i f the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n appl y i ng the tw o- l e ve l w e apon enhancem ent , the courtw as re qu i re d t o i m po se the 12 0-m on th m andat ory mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e u n l e s s i tf o u n d th e s a f

e ty v a l v e ap p l i c ab l e . Se e 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A )( i i ). W e have al re ady c on cl ud ed thatthe courtcorr ec t l y deni ed s a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

. T hus , a ny pot e nt i a l e rr ori n a ttr i but i ng t o G onz a l e z the tw o-5

l evel w eapo n enh ance m entw as harm l es s. S ee F ed. R . C ri m . P . 52 (a ) ( st at i ng that “[ a ]n y e rr o r , d e f

e c t, irr e g u la r ity , o rv a r ia n c e th a t d o e s n o t a f f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts m u s t b e d is r e g a r d e d ” ) . G o n z a le z ’s th ir d a r g u m e n t, th a t h is s e n te n c e v io la te s th e E x P o s t F a c to C l ause and D ue P roce ss C l ause i n l i gh tof B oo ker, fa i l s. W e det erm i ned that G onz a l e z w a s c orr e c t l y s e nt e nc e d t o the s t a tut ory m i ni m um , a nd a ny a r gum e nt ba s e d on B ooke rdoe s notc ha nge tha tf a c t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1333 n. 10 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tdi s tr i c tc our t s r e m a i n bound by s t a tut ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s de s pi t e B ooke r ’ s r e m e di a l hol di ng tha tthe S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a r e m e r e ly a d v is o ry ) . F i na l l y , ne i the rG onz a l e z northe G ove rnm e ntr a i s e s a ny i s s ue r e ga r di ng the i ncon si st enci es betw ee n the charges i n the i nd i ctm entt o w hi ch G on za l ez pl ea ded gui l ty a nd the c ha r ge s tha tappe a ri n the j udgm e nt . N one the l e s s , w e m a y s ua s p o n te r a is e th e is s u e o f c le r ic a l e rr o r s in th e ju d g m e n t a n d r e m a n d w ith i ns truc t i ons tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c tthos e e rr or s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A nde r t on, 136 F . 3d 747, 751 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( r e m a ndi ng w i th di r e c t i ons t o the di s tr i c tc our tt o c orr e c tthe c l e r i c a l e rr or s w he r e the s t a tut e c i t e d i n the j udgm e nt and com m i tm entorder w as i ncorrec t ). “ Iti s f un dam ent al error f

or a c ou rtt o ent er a j udgm e ntof

c onvi c t i on a ga i ns ta de f e nda ntw ho ha s notbe e n c ha r ge d, tr i e d or6

f ound gui l ty of

the c r i m e r e c i t e d i n the j udgm e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D i a z , 190 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 52 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T h e j u d g m e n te n t e r e d b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta g a i n s tGo n z a l e z c o n t a i n s two cl er i ca l errors . F i rs t , the j ud gm entdo es no tre fe re nce the subst ant i ve cr i m i nal pr ovi s i on, 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , w hi c h w a s c ont a i ne d i n the i ndi c tm e ntf orC ount O ne . S e c ond, the j udgm e nti nc orr e c t l y de s c r i be s the na tur e of the of f e ns e f or C o u n t T w o a s p o s s e s s io n — in s te a d o f a tte m p t to p o s s e s s — w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te fiv e k il o g ra m s o r m o re o f c o ca in e. W e v ac ate a n d re m an d th e d istrict co u rt’s j u d g m en tfo r th e l i m i t ed p u rp o se o f co rrect i n g th ese cl eri cal erro rs. A FFI R M ED in p a r t; VA C A TED in p a r t A N D R EM A N D ED .