FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E ALS ELE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRIL 21 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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. 05- 14100 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 0 3 -6 0 2 7 5 -C R -W JZ 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 A L E X G H E O R G H I U , 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 forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 21, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A p p e lla n t A le x G h e o r g h iu a p p e a ls h is 4 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e fo rc o n s p ir a c y to2

pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m e thy l e ne di oxy m e tha m phe t a m i ne hy dr oc hl or i de (“ M D M A ”) , i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . O n app ea l , G heorgh i u fi rs tar gu es tha the s houl d ha ve r e c e i ve d a m i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on be c a us e hi s onl y c onduc ti n a le n g th y c o n s p ir a c y w a s a o n e - d a y a p p e a r a n c e . W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n o n w h e th e rto g r a n t a m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n fo rc le a re r r o r . Uni t e d Stat e s v . D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0, 93 7 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). M i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt s m a y r e c e i ve a four - l e ve l r e duc t i on, [ a nd] m i nor p a r tic ip a n ts m a y r e c e iv e a tw o - le v e l r e d u c tio n . . . See U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( a ) , ( b ) . T h e c o m m e n ta r y to th e G u id e lin e s in s tr u c ts th a t a fo u r - le v e l r e d u c tio n “is in te n d e d to c o v e rd e fe n d a n ts w h o a r e p la in ly a m ong the l e a s tc ul pa bl e of thos e i nvol ve d i n the c onduc tof a gr oup .

. . . a nd the i rl a c k of

know l e dge orunde r s t a ndi ng of the s c ope a nd s tr uc tur e of

the e nt e r pr i s e a nd of

the a c t i vi t i e s of

othe r s i s i ndi c a t i ve of a r ol e a s m i ni m al part i ci pant . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 1). T he a ppl i c a t i on not e pr ovi de s , fore xa m pl e , tha ta four - l e ve l r e duc t i on w ou l d b e a pp ropri at e “ for s om eone w ho pl ay ed no ot her r ol e i n a very la r g e d r u g s m u g g lin g o p e r a tio n th a n to o f f lo a d p a r t o f

a s in g le m ar i hu ana s hi pm ent , or i n a ca se w here an i nd i vi du al w as re cr ui t ed as a c our i e rfora s i ngl e s m uggl i ng tr a ns a c t i on i nvol vi ng a s m a l l a m ount o f d r u g s .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. ( n .2 ) . I n c o n tr a s t, a m in o rr o le i n th e o ffen se “ m ean s an y p art i ci p an tw h o i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o st ot her parti ci pant s, bu tw ho se rol e c ou l d n otbe desc ri bed as m i ni m al . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 3). I d. a t939. T he de fe nda ntha s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng hi s r ol e by a pr e ponde r a nc e of e v id e n c e . I

d. F o ra s e n te n c in g c o u r t to d e te r m in e w h e th e rto g r a n t a m in o r - r o le3

r e d u c tio n , it c o n s id e r s tw o p r in c ip le s . I d. at94 0. F i rs t , the courtm ustm ea sure th e d e fe n d a n t’s r o le a g a in s t th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t fo rw h ic h s h e is b e in g h e ld a c c o u n ta b le . I

d. W e ha ve not e d tha t“ [ o] nl y i f the de fe nda ntc a n e s t a bl i s h tha ts he p la y e d a r e la tiv e ly m in o r - r o le in th e c o n d u c t fo rw h ic h s h e h a s a lr e a d y b e e n h e ld a c c ount a bl e - nota m i norr ol e i n a ny l a r ge rc r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y - s houl d the d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n t” a m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n . I d. a t944. T he s e c ond pr ong of the m i no r- rol e r educt i on anal ys i s per m i t s adi stri ctcourt , “ w here the re cord evi dence i s s uffi ci ent. . . [, t o] m ea sure the defendant ’ s c on du ctagai nstthatof ot her part i ci pant s i n t he cr i m i nal sc hem e a t tri bu t ed t o t he defendant . ” I d. a t934. B e c a u s e th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t G h e o r g h iu w a s h e ld a c c o u n ta b le o n ly forhi s ow n c onduc ti n s uppl y i ng the M D M A , w e c onc l ude f r om the r e c or d tha tthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oter r i n fai l i ng t o g ra nta m i no r- rol e r educt i on . A s t o t hi s i ss ue, w e a f f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. G he or ghi u ne xta r gue s tha t , be c a us e he e ve ntua l l y t ol d the gove r nm e ntthe tr uth r e ga r di ng the i ns t a ntof fe ns e , he w a s e nt i t l e d t o s a fe t y - va l ve r e l i e f . T he s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w of

a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s fa c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons of w he the rt o gr a nt s a fe ty - v a lv e r e lie f

is c le a re r r o r . Uni t e d Stat e s v . C r uz , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 5 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 97 ). “ T he qu es t i on of w hether the i nform at i on [thatthe defendant ] supp l i ed t o the gove r nm e nt. . . w a s tr uthf ul a nd c om pl e t e . . . i s a fa c tua l f i ndi ng forthe4

di stri ctcourt . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B row nl ee , 2 0 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .

“ T he bu rden of proo f on t he truthful ness i ss ue l i es , of course , w i th t he defendant . ” Un i t edS ta t es v. E sp i n o sa , 1 7 2 F .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e d istrict co u rt’s f in d in g s o f

c r e d ib ility a r e a c c o r d e d s p e c ia l d e fe r e n c e . Uni t ed Stat es v. A m edeo , 3 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A d efen d an ti s en t i t l ed t o safet y-v al v e rel i ef i f h e “ m eet s [ i nt er a lia , the] cr i t er i a [ that ] 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 he G ov er nm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence the defendanthas concerni ng the offens e or off ense s thatw er e par tof the sa m e c ou rs e of c on du ct . ” Uni t e d Stat e s v . Si m

ps on , 228 F . 3d 1294, 1304- 1305 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( c i t i ng 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f) ; U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 ) . N othi ng i n the s t a tut e s ugge s t s tha ta de fe nda ntw ho pr e vi ous l y l i e d or w ith h e ld in fo r m a tio n f

r o m th e g o v e r n m e n t is a u to m a tic a lly di s qua l i f i e d f r om s a fe t y - va l ve r e l i e f . . . . W e fol l ow thos e c i r c ui t s w ho have hel d t hatl i es and o m i ss i on s do n ot , as a m att erof l aw , di squal i fy a d efen d an tfro m safet y-v al v e rel i ef so l o n g as th e d efen d an tm ak es a c om pl e t e a nd tr uthf

ul pr of fe rnotl a t e rtha n the c om m e nc e m e ntof the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. B row nl ee , 204 F . 3d a t1304- 05. H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our t , w he n de c i di ng on the de fe nda nt ’ s tr uthf

ul ne s s , m a y t a ke i nt o a c c ountthe de fe nda nt ’ s pr e vi ous untr uthf ul ne s s , a nd the e vi de nc e of hi s l i e s be c om e s “ pa r tof the t ot a l m i x of e vi de nc e forthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de ri n e va l ua t i ng the c om pl e t e ne s s a nd5

truthful ness of the defendant ’ s proff er . ” I d. a t1305 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons a nd c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H er e, G heorgh i u h as fa i l ed t o sho w thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed w hen i tfoun d t hathe w as no tent i t l ed t o t he sa fe t y- val ve re du ct i on . T he di stri ctcourt p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d a s p a r t o f th e to ta l m ix , th e fa c t th a t G h e o r g h iu w a s n o t tr u th f u lly fo r th c o m in g a b o u t h is s u p p lie ra n d m a ilin g c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s to hi m se l f. B ec ause G heorgh i u h as fa i l ed t o sho w thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n f i ndi ng tha the ha d nottr uthf ul l y pr ovi de d t o the gove r nm e nta l l r e l e va nt i nfor m a t i on tha the ha d c onc e r ni ng the of fe ns e tha tw a s pa r tof

the s a m e c our s e of c onduc t , w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng. F or the abov e- st at ed re as on s, w e a ff i rm G heorgh i u’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.