FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1507 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . D oc ket No . 07-20453-CR-PCH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us OSCAR DAMI AN RIOS-CALLE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appea l from

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 27, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: O sc ar Ri os- Ca lle appe al s hi s 12 0- m onth se nte nc e im pose d f or c onsp ir ing to poss ess with intent to di stribute on e or m ore kilogram s of heroin, in violation of 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ) an d 21 U . S. C. § 84 6, and atte m pti ng t o po sse ss w ithint en t2

to di st rib ut e o ne or m or e k il og ram s o f he ro in , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 841( b) (1 )( A )( 1) . C ontrary to Ri os- Ca lle ’ s c ont en tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t cl earl y e rr or in de ny ing sa fe ty -v al ve r el ie f be ca use Ri os- Ca lle did

not pr ovi de a ll th e i n f o rmat i o nth a th e p o s s e s s e dr e g ar d i n g th e h e r o i nc o n s p i r a c y. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i rm . I. BACK GROUND Af ed er al gr an d j ur

y ind ic te d R ios -C al le and L uis V an eg as -M en de z on a thr ee -c ount

ind ic tm en t. R 1- 7. R ios -C al le ple d gu ilty to Co unt 1, c onsp ir ing to poss es s he ro in w ithint en t t o di str ibu te , and C ount 3, a tte m pti ng t o po sse ss h er oin with intent to dis tribute. R2. A ccording to th e pre- sentence investigatio n report (“ PS I” ), ac onf

ide nti al inf

orm an t ( “ CI ”) gave inf

orm at ionle ad ing to the arr es t of Vanegas-Mendez. When arre sted, V anegas-Mendez w as in poss ession o f a si gn ifi can t q ua nt it y

of h ero in , andhe be ga n c oo pe rat in g wi th th e FBI . O n 11 Jun e 2007 , V an eg as -M en de z te le phon ed the ow ne r of

the he ro in i n Co lom bia and w as tol d th at

som eo ne w oul d c ont ac t hi m . B ec au se V an eg as Mendez w as in custod y , F BI a gents gave his phon e to another confidential inf orm at ion( “ CI 2") . T he ne xt d ay , Ri os- Ca lle c ont ac te d C I2 , arr an ge d am ee tin g, an d a gr ee d to pay

aportio n of

the tr an spor

ta tio n f ee . T he f oll ow ing day , Ri osCa lle m et w ithCI 2 a t the a gr ee d lo catio n and w as arr es te d. Whe n he w as arr es te d,3

$5,000 was found on Rios -Calle’ s person. Rios-Calle’ s rece nt previous j obs had pa idhi m be twee n $ 35 0 p er weekan d $ 1,8 00 pe r m on th . Ri os- Ca lle tol d th e pr obatio n of fi ce r that he ha d r ec ei ve d ac al l f ro m his unc le in Co lom

bia on 1 2 June 200 7. T he unc le a ske d R ios -C al le to do h im af av or fo r one of the unc le ’ s f

ri en ds who h ad

gotte n in to tro ubl e in S outh F lor ida . T he unc le w an te d R ios -C al le to take the $5, 000 to s om eo ne e lse , w ho the n w oul d gi ve Ri os -Cal le a pa ck ag e to ho ldun ti l an ot he r pe rs on cam e an d o bt ai ne d i t fr om hi m . Inpr ep ar ing the P SI , the pr obatio n of fi ce r ap pli ed

U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( a) (3 ) to ca lc ulate aba se of

fe nse le ve l of

32 b as ed on the dr ug c onvi ct ion s. R ios -C al le qua lif ie d f or atw o- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity , r es ult ing in a tot al of fe nse le ve l of

30, w ithac ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y of I . T his y ie lde d a se nte nc ing r an ge of

97- 121 m onths o f im

pr iso nm en t and, a ft er

a dj ustm en t f

or the statutory m inim um sentence of ten y ears, the Sentencing Guidelines range w as 12 0- 12 1 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t. The st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e is li fe. In relevant part, the governm ent objecte d to the origin al version of the PSI because it applied safety -valve relief , U .S .S .G . § 5C1. 2, and the G uidelin es reduction un der U .S .S .G . § 2D 1.1(b)(9). In re spon se, the probation officer revised th e PSI s o t ha t Ri os -Cal le was n otde sc rib edas q ua li fy in g fo r th os e reduc ti on s.4

Ri os- Ca lle obj ec te d to the P SI be ca use it did not gr ant hi m

am ino r- ro le r ed

uc tio n un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ). At the sentencing hearing, R ios-Calle renew ed his objections and argued that the probatio n officer wa s correc t in the initi al determ ination that he qualified fo r sa fe ty -v al ve r el ie f. R 3 a t 7. A ft er r es olv ing obj ec tio ns n ot r el ev an t onappe al , th e d is tri ctco ur t co ns id eredth e ap pl ic ab il it y of s afet y -v al ve rel ie f. Id. at 9, 1 2- 14 . The go ve rn m en t as se rte d t ha t Ri os -Cal le ’s st at em en ts were i nc om pl et e. Id . at 1 4. Inr es pons e, the dis tr ic t c ourt c ont inu ed the se nte nc ing to giv e Ri os- Ca lle ad dit ion al ti m e to c om e fo rw ar d w ithc om ple te inf orm at ion . I d. At the sec ond sent encing hearing, the governm ent noted th at it did no t feel Rios-Calle had com

pletely explained the sou rce of the $5,000. R4 at 5. When told th at Rios-Calle had stated that the m oney cam e fr om

his hom e, the district co urt c om

m en te d: “ L et

m e te ll y ou, that’ s no t a

ve ry be lie vable sto ry . H e j ust happens to have $5,000 in a sho e box in hi s hom e. ” Id. at 6. The district court he ld a br ie f re ce ss t o a llo wRi os- Ca lle anothe r oppo rt uni ty to m ak e state m en ts t o the gov er nm en t. A ft er

r ec es s, the gov er

nm ent e xpl ai ne d th e iss ue s it ha d w iththe co m ple te ne ss o f Ri os- Ca lle ’ s st at em en ts u p to that po int

by statin g: Mr. Ri os -Cal le can no t t el l m e wha t h is un cl e d oe s fo r a l iv in g. Cannot tell m e his [uncle’ s] phon e num ber. Cannot tell m e w here [h is unc le ] li ve s. C annot te ll m e w he re his gr an dm oth er li ve s ou tsi de of j ust Medellin, Colom

bia.5 H e state d th at

he spe ak s to his unc le w he n he c al ls h is gr an dm oth er ’ s ho use , he is the re . T he la st t im e he spo ke w ithhis unc le be fo re thi s oc ca sio n w as in Apr il w he n th e unc le a ske d th e defendant to sho w his cousin, w ho is in the m ilitary , around New Y ork. H e doe sn’ t kn oww ha t br an chof the m ili tary

his c ousi n is in so I can c onf

irm that. Id . a t 7. A ddi tio na lly , the gov er nm en t r ep re se nte d: T he sourc e of

the m one y

is his ow n. H ow ev er , w he n he spo ke w ithhis unc le and— on the se co nd a ft er he m et w iththe inf

orm an t on the f ir st d ay and t old the unc le the pa ck ag e he is supp ose d to pic k up w as dr ugs he ne ve r as ke d hi s un cl e w hy are y ou a ski ng m e to p ic k up drugs, who is this person I am picking up drugs for.

. . . . Whe n I a ske d hi m

howhe w as sup pose d to be pa id b ac k he sa id s im ply that the unc le tol d hi m

he w ill ge t pa id b ac k th e fo llo w ing M o n d ay. He di d n otin qu ire by who m . He di d n otin qu ire ho w. He state d he did

not w an t t o kn ow , he w as not int er es te d inkno w ing w ho the ow ne r of

the dr ugs w as . H e did not inf orm his unc le he ha d apr ev iou s c onvi ct ionf or dr ug p oss es sio n and tha t he w as out on b ai l f or an arr es t onadr

ug re la te d c as e. H e did

not thi nk h e ne ed ed

to te ll his unc le that. Id . a t 8. T he gov er

nm en t a lso tol d th e co urt tha t R ios -C al le did not kno ww ho w oul d pi ck

up the pa ck ag e co nta ini ng h er oinf ro m him . I d. Inr es pons e, Ri os- Ca lle ’ s c ouns el r ep re se nte d to the c ourt tha t, be ca use Rios-Calle had m oved to th e U nited States, he had not seen his uncle in thi rteen y ears . I d. a t 9. R ios -C al le kne wthat hi s un cl e liv ed in Me de lli n, but

he did not knowhis unc le ’ s te le phon e num be r; the num

be r w as on h is c el l ph one take n f ro m him by the gov er

nm en t. I d. T he c ourt a ske d a bout the sourc e of

the m one y

and6

defense counsel represented that he had brought $ 6,500 with him when he m oved from Ne w Y ork to Miam i. I d. H e had fronted the m oney with the expectation that he w oul d be r ep ai d and c om pe nsate d f

or doi ng the f

av or f or his unc le . I d. T he co urt st at ed : “ T his is not

ve ry goo d, Mr . K ah n. I t’ s no t ve ry be lie vable . ” I d. De fense counsel responded th at it wa s unfair to fault Rios-Calle f or his lack of knowledge given hi s m inor role in the heroin consp iracy . Id. at 9-10. T he court expla ine d: “ I don’ t thin k th at is w ha t the G ove rn m en t i s a ski ng. T he y ’ re a ski ng for som e of the details to kind o f test his truthfulness .” Id. at 10. L ater, the court an al yzedth e i s s u e: “ Th e q u es t i o ni s d o I b el i ev e h e h as th e k n o wl ed g e. I d o n ’t [ kn o w ] h o wmu c h kn o w l e d g e h e h a s . T h e G o v e rn me n tI th i n kh a s th e s a me fe el ing I have . ” I d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d th at Ri os- Ca lle w as not

e lig ibl e fo r sa fe ty -v al ve r el ie f: “ I do a gr ee w iththe G ove rn m en t. I thi nk [ Ri os- Ca lle ] is hi di ng th e b al l.” Id . at 1 1. D ur ing his a llo cu tio n, Ri os- Ca lle e xpr es se d di sm ay that the gov er

nm en t di d not believe that he had been com pletely honest. In re spon se, the district court of fe re d to take anothe r re ce ss t o gi ve Ri os- Ca lle ti m e to m ak e a m or e co m ple te state m en t. R ios -C al le state d th at he ha d a lr ea dy

tol d e ve ry

thi ng tha t he kne wand de cl ine d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s of fe r. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at it w as not expecting Rios-Calle to tell everything his uncle had do ne in the past thirteen7

y ears , but it did not “ thi nk [ Ri os- Ca lle ] ha s gi ve n af ull and c om

ple te a cc ount

of thi s tr an sa ct ion . ” I d. a t 14 . P ur suant t o th e ap pli ca ble statut or

y m ini m um , the co ur t s en te nc edRio s- Cal le to 12 0 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. II. D ISCU SSION O n a ppe al , Ri os- Ca lle arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly

e rr ed in fi ndi ng him ine lig ibl e fo r sa fe ty -v al ve r el ie f. H e co nte nds that he w as c om ple te ly tr uth fu l be ca use he tol d th e gove rn m en t e ve ry thi ng tha t he kne wabout

the he ro in co nspi ra cy . R ios -C al le a sse rt s th at the gov er

nm en t i na ppr opr ia te ly

r ai se d th e standard by de m an din g in fo rm at ionthe gov er nm en t thoug ht R ios -C al le sho uld have known. A ccording to Rios-Calle, when he explained his lack of knowledge, th e g ov ern m en t d eci de d t ha t h e was lying . In determ ining whether

safety -valve relief

properly wa s denied, w e re view the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or and the appl ic at ionof

the Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s to tho se f ac ts d e novo . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Joh nson , 375 F . 3d 1300 , 1301 (11th Cir. 2004) (per c uriam ). Sec tion § 5C1.2 re quires a district court to s en te nc e a de fe ndant i n c er ta in dru g- poss es sio n c as es w ith out r eg ar d to any st atut ory m in im um sen te nc e if

th e d efen da ntm eet s t he fiv e cri te ria un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2. Un it edSta te s v . Bro wnl ee, 2 04 F.3d13 02 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Se ct ion§ 2D 1. 1( b) (9 ) pr ovi de s f or atw o- le ve l de cr ea se in of fe nse le ve l i f the8

de fe ndant m ee ts the c ri te ri a se t f orth i n U . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 2. T he bur de n is on the de fe ndant t o sh owthat he ha s satis fi ed a ll of the sa fe ty -v al ve f

ac tor s and tha t the inf orm at ionthat he ha s pr ovi de d is tr uth fu l. Unit ed

S ta te s v. Cr

uz , 106 F . 3d 1 553, 1557 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . T he re is no b ur de n onthe gov er nm en t t o so lic it in fo rm at io n fr om

a de fen da ntco nc ern in g m eet in g t he saf et y -v al ve requi rem en ts . United States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339 , 1346-47 (11th Cir. 2006 ) (per curiam). T o qu al if y f or sa fe ty -v al ve r el ie f, ade fe ndant m ust tr uth fu lly and f ull y dis cl ose to the gov er

nm en t any

inf orm at ionw ith in h is k

now le dge “ co nc er

nin g th e

. . . of fe nse s th at

w er e part

of the sam e co ur se of

c ondu ct ” fo r w hic h th e de fe ndant is b ei ng s en te nc ed . U . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 2( a) (5 ). Adis tr ic t c ourt c annot appl y the safety valve if it determ ines that the defendant withheld or m isrepresented inf orm at ion , e ve n if

the inf orm at ionw oul d no t have a ide d f urthe r inv es tig at ionor pr ose cu tio n if

pr ope rl y dis cl ose d. U nit ed

S ta te s v. F igu er oa , 199 F . 3d 1 281, 128 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (pe r cu ria m ). “ [L]ies a ndom is si on s d o n ot , as am at te r of law, dis qua lif y ade fe ndant f

ro m sa fe ty -v al ve r el ie f so l ong as the de fe ndant m ak es a co m ple te and truthf

ul p ro ff er not late r than th e co m

m en ce m en t of

the se nte nc ing he ar ing . ” Br ow nle e, 204 F . 3d at 13 05. I n de te rm ini ng the hon es ty of ade fe ndant, the dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust ind ep en de ntl y

a sse ss the f

ac ts and m ay

not r el y on the9

governm ent’ s assertion of dish onesty . United States v. Espinosa, 172 F.3d 795 , 797 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Rios-Calle’ s claim

that the district court clearly err ed in finding that he wa s not c om ple te ly tr uth fu l i s w ith out

m er it. R ios -C al le tol d th e gove rn m en t tha t he w as goi ng t o gi ve $5, 000 to a m anw hom

he did not kno w , f or an un cl e, w hom

he had not seen in thirteen y ears and with whom he had not sp oken for several m on th s, o n t he be li ef t ha t t he m on ey wou ldbe returne d b y

a di ffer en t u nk no wn ind ivi dua l. R4 a t 6- 9. I t w as not c le ar ly e rr one ous fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o conclude that Rios-Calle would not part with a substanti al portion of his life savin gs, $5, 000 of

the $6, 500 he ha d br ough t f ro m N ewY ork, w ith out

kno w ing to whom he w as giving the m oney , and the ident ity of the individ ual who w ouldpay him ba ck . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in co nc lud ing that R ios -C al le did not pr ovi de a ll of

the inf orm at ionthat he kne wabout his of fe nse s of co nv ic ti on . So m e o f t h e r ea s o n s ad v an ce db y th e g o v ern m en t , s u ch as Ri o s -C al l e’s i g n o ra n ce o f h i s u n cl e’s jo b , h i s u n cl e’s ad dre s s i nMe d el l i n , a n dh i s co u s i n ’s branch of service in the Colom bian m ilitary , do not concern the “ offenses that we re part of the sam e course of c ondu ct” as the c rim es with which Rios-Calle w as ch ar ge d. U . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 2( a) (5 ). F urthe r, the gov er nm en t’ s a sse rt ion , that R ios -10

Ca lle sho uld

have tol d hi s un cl e that R ios -C al le ha d apr ior c onvi ct ionand w as on bond , doe s no t se em

r el at ed to w he the r Ri os- Ca lle c om ple te ly inf orm ed the gove rn m en t of

w ha t he kne w . N one the le ss, Ri os- Ca lle ’ s om iss ion s do sug ge st th a tR i o s - C a l l e wa s n o tc o mp l e t e l y tr u th f u l an dth u s d i dn o tqu a l i f y fo r s a f e tyvalve relief. Ri os- Ca lle r el ie s onU nit ed S ta te s v. Mi randa -S an tia go, 96 F . 3d 5 17, 529 (1 st C ir . 199 6) , in w hic h th e Fi rs t C ir cu it he ld tha t i t w as e rr or to fi nd tha t the de fe ndant k

ne wm or e than sh e w as te lli ng t o th e gove rn m en t ba se d on ly on the fa ct that the de fe ndant l ive d w itham or e cu lpa ble c ode fe dant. I n th is c as e, Ri osCalle’ s asserted ignorance of how he w ouldbe repaid cr eates a direct infer ence, no t s pe cu la ti on , th athe kn ew m or e in fo rm at io n t ha n h e h adto ldth e g ov ern m en t. Rios-Calle re lies on United States v. B rack, 188 F.3d 748, 762-63 (7th Cir. 1999 ), in whic h th e Se ve nthCi rc uit he ld tha t the de fe ndant’ s wri tte n st at em en t i nvi tin g the governm ent to interview him , c om bined with the gov ernm ent’ s refusal to m eet w ithhim satis fi ed the sa fe ty -v al ve dis cl osur e re qui re m en ts. I d. a t 76 3. I n th is ca se , Ri os- Ca lle de cl ine d to spe ak to the gov er

nm en t a ft er

he w as giv enm

ult ipl e oppo rt uni tie s to te ll al l tha t he kne w , inc lud ing ac ont inu an ce of his se nte nc ing hearing, and a rece ss of his sentencin g hearing. S ignificantly , both cases re lied11

uponby Ri os- Ca lle are onl y

pe rs ua siv e au tho ri ty . T he re fo re , Ri os- Ca lle did not m ee t the sa fe ty -v al ve r equir em en ts, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed . III. CO NC LUS ION Ri os- Ca lle ha s a

ppe al ed his 120 -m onth se nte nc e im pose d f or c onsp ir ing to poss es s he ro in w ithint en t t o di str ibu te and atte m pti ng t o po sse ss h er oinw ith int en t t o di str ibu te . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in fi ndi ng tha t R ios -C al le failed to m eet his burden of provin g that he qualified for safety -valve relief be ca use the sub stanti ve f

ac ts a bout w hic h R ios -C al le a sse rt ed ign or an ce gave r ise t o ani n f e r e n c e th a tR i o s - C a l l e wa s n o tb e i n g c o mp l e t e l y tr u th f u l . Ac c o r d i n g l y, Ri os- Ca lle ’ s se nte nc e is AF FIRMED .