F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 2, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1420 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-60339 -CR- W PD UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARC US ROLLE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 2, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN Aand P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Marc us R oll e ap pe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc e of im pr iso nm en t f

or 60 m onths f or c onsp ir ac y

to im port at l ea st 5 00 g ram s of c oc ai ne and i m

portatio n of2

cocaine. See 21 U. S. C. §§ 96 3, 952(a). Rolle contends that th e evidence w as ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s c onvi ct ion s and the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it did not ap pl y th e “ sa fet y

va lv e” p ro vi si on , 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f), to reduc e h is sen te nc e. W e af firm Rolle’ s convictio ns and sentence. W e re vie wthe “ suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort a c onvi ct ionde nov o, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and draw ing al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces infav or

of t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” U nit ed S tate s v. T ay lor , 480 F . 3d 1 025, 102 6 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, 128 S . Ct . 13 0 (2 00 7) . “ Cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns are t he ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e jury. Uni te d S ta te s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3d13 14 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). To sustain the convictio n for conspiracy , ther e m ust be sufficient evidence for a j ury to find bey ond a reasonable doub t that (1) an agre em ent existed between two or m ore people to com m it a crim e, (2) Rolle knewof the essential objec tives of that a gr ee m en t, and ( 3) Ro lle vol unt ar ily and know ing ly

part ic ipate d inthe crim e. U nited States v. Battle, 892 F. 2d 99 2, 999 (11th Cir. 1990). T he j ury m ay

“ inf er part ic ipatio n inthe c onsp ir ac y f ro m the de fe ndant’ s a ct ionor f ro m ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce of the sc he m e. ” U nit ed

S tate s v. H ar

ri s, 20 F . 3d 4 45, 452 (11th Cir. 1994). To sustain the convictio n for im porting cocaine, the evidence m ust be suf fi ci en t f or the j ur y to fi nd b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t R oll e3

knowingl y

participated at som e stage in the im portation o f coca ine. United States v. Mar tinez, 763 F. 2d 12 97, 1303-34 (11th Cir. 1985). Th e g o v ern m en tp re s en t eds u ff i ci en tev i d en ce t o s up p o rtRo l l e’s convictio ns for conspiracy to im port cocaine and im

portation o f coca ine. T he j ury w as f re e to b el ie ve the te sti m ony of the c o- co nspi rator

that R oll e as ke d hi m

to put the cocaine in the bag and disb elieve the statem ents Rolle gave to the pol ice of fi ce rs a ft er

his arr es t. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Ri ve ra , 775 F . 2d 1 559, 156 1 ( 11th Ci r. 198 5) ; Unit ed

S tate s v. V er a, 701 F . 2d 1 349, 135 7 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) . B ec au se the te sti m ony

of the c o- co nspi rator

is not unb el ie vable , w e w ill not dis tur b th e fin di ng s o f th e jury. Rolle’ s sentencing argum ent also fails. R olle argues that the district court er re d whe n it

de nie d hi m

athe “ sa fe ty -v al ve r ed

uc tio n. ” Adis tr ic t c ourt sh al l sentence a def

endant in certain drug cases “ without regard to any statutory m in im um sen te nc e” i f th e d efen da ntm eet s fi ve li st edcri te ria . See U.S.S.G. § 5C 1. 2( a) . T he bur de n is on the de fe ndant t o e sta bli sh tha t he ha s satis fi ed a ll of th e sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f an d p ro vi de d t ru th fu l i nf orm at io n. U nit ed S tate s v. Cr

uz , 106 F . 3d 1 553, 155 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . S ec tio n 5C 1. 2( a) (5 ) re qui re s ade fe ndant t o di sc los e tr uth fu lly and f ull y the inf orm at ionw ith in h is know le dge about

the c ri m e fo r w hic h he is be ing se nte nc ed . S ee U nit ed S tate s v.4

Fi gu ero a, 19 9 F .3d12 81 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). When review ing th e denial of safe ty -valve relief , w e re view legal int er pr et at ion s de nov o and the f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns o f the dis tr ic t c ourt f or cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 3 75 F.3d13 00 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). At sentencing, Rolle aff

irm ed his origin al statem ent to pol ice. Rolle m aintained that he int en de d to ste al the c oc ai ne f ro m the ba g, but

the n de ci de d a ga ins t i t. R oll e as se rt ed that the te sti m ony

of the c o- co nspi rator

that R oll e as ke d th e co co ns pi rat orto pu t t he co cai ne in th e b ag was fa ls e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr w he n it de te rm ine d th at

Ro lle did not pr ovi de hon es t and a cc ur at e inf orm at ionto the gov er

nm en t. T he c onvi ct ionof Ro lle by the j ur y r ej ec te d R oll e’ s a cc ount

that he w as a tte m

pti ng t o st ea l the co ca ine , ins te ad

of pla ci ng i t i n th e ba g. R oll e fa ile d to pr ove that he w as e lig ibl e fo r re lie f unde r the sa fe ty -v al ve pr ovi sio n. Rolle’ s convictio ns and sentence are AF FIRMED .