United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3653

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Curtis Skillett, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2004

Filed: November 23, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Skillet pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five

hundred grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. At a hearing, four

of Skillet’s coconspirators testified about Skillet’s involvement in the conspiracy. An

agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) testified about his investigation of

the conspiracy, his seizure of a drug record and scale from Skillet’s auto repair

business, and wiretapped conversations between Skillet and another coconspirator.

Skillet also testified and denied much of his coconspirators’ testimony. The district
*

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

-2-

court*

 resolved a dispute about drug quantity in Skillet’s favor, but denied Skillet a

decrease in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for being a minor or minimal

participant, and denied Skillet relief from the statutory minimum sentence under the

safety valve, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). After another hearing concerning the applicability

of the safety valve the district court again denied safety valve relief and sentenced

Skillet to the statutory minimum sentence, ten years in prison and five years of

supervised release. 

On appeal, Skillet contends the district court should have adjusted his offense

level downward under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for his minor or minimal role in the

conspiracy. The notes to the guideline explain that a minimal participant is “plainly

among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group,” and a minor

participant is one who is less culpable than most other participants, but one whose

role cannot be described as minimal. Id. n.4. Skillet had the burden to show he was

entitled to a § 3B1.2 reduction. United States v. Bertling, 370 F.3d 818, 821 (8th Cir.

2004). We review the district court’s denial of the reduction for clear error, id., and

find none. 

The evidence seized from Skillett’s office and the testimony of his four

coconspirators show Skillett was a middleman of the conspiracy. He purchased large

quantities of methamphetamine and redistributed them to other members in quarterpound and pound quantities. Skillett knew the large players in the conspiracy, and

their telephone numbers in his Rolodex. As a middleman, Skillett was an essential

member of the conspiracy to whom a reduction for a mitigating role does not apply.

See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996). Besides, in their

written plea agreement, Skillet and the Government agreed Skillet had not met the

criteria for a mitigating role, and the PSR noted this agreement. See United States v.
-3-

His Law, 85 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (promises made in plea

agreements are binding on both the defendant and the government).

Skillet also argues the district court should have granted him relief under the

safety valve, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The safety valve permits a district court to disregard

an otherwise applicable statutory minimum sentence when, among other things, the

defendant has truthfully given the Government all information and evidence the

defendant has about the offense. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). We review for the district

court’s finding that Skillet did not truthfully give the Government all information

about his offense for clear error. United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 702 (8th

Cir. 2003); United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado, 328 F.3d 1018, 1019 (8th Cir.

2003) (per curiam). The district court found Skillet had failed to meet his burden to

show he had truthfully given the government all information about his offense. The

court stated Skillet’s testimony had so minimized his involvement in the conspiracy

that it bordered on forfeiting acceptance of responsibility. The court found Skillet

had not been forthright in his testimony. The district court did not commit clear error.

Skillett’s testimony conflicted with the testimony of his coconspirators and evidence

corroborating the coconspirators’ testimony. The FBI agent testified that given the

coconspirators’ testimony and the corroborating evidence, Skillet was not being

truthful. 

Skillet also seeks leave to amend his brief based on the Supreme Court’s

decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Skillet states the

“decision in Blakely impacts the findings and judgment of the [district court],” but

does not specify any issues raised by Blakely or how it applies to the issues he has

raised. We have carefully reviewed Skillet’s sentencing and conclude Blakely does

not apply. Skillet was sentenced to ten years in prison, the mandatory minimum term

of imprisonment for a defendant convicted of trafficking over 500 grams of a mixture

or substance containing methamphetamine. The Court in Blakely stated a judge may

impose a sentence based solely on “facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by
-4-

the defendant.” 124 S. Ct. at 2537 (emphasis in original). Here, Skillett pleaded

guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, and

acknowledged in the plea agreement that he faced a minimum sentence of ten years.

Because the district court did not have to make any additional finding to justify the

ten-year sentence it imposed, Skillett’s sentence is consistent with the Sixth

Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Blakely. United States v. Lucca,

377 F.3d 927, 934 (8th Cir. 2004).

We thus deny Skillet’s motion to amend his brief, and affirm Skillet’s sentence.

______________________________