# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 38 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Adr ia n Os wald o R od rig ue z

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 14 81

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo se Cru z Ojeda

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 27 68

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le ev.

Ja vi er Gu ad al up e Ram ire z-Ra y a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 16
Fil ed : M arch 30 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Jo se Cru z Ojeda, Adr ia n Oswal do Ro dr ig ue z, an d Ja vi er Gua da lu pe Ram ire zRaya each pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e

of m et ha m ph et am in e p ur su an t t o 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), and 84 6. The y

w e re ch arg ed in an in di ct m en t in vo lv in g 18 de fen da nt s who were al le ge d to b e

pa rti ci pa nt s in a dr ug tra ffi ck in g ne two rk in M i n n e s o t a, Cal ifo rn ia , a nd Ohi o. The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ojeda to 24 0 m on th s ’ im pr is on m en t, Ro dr ig ue z to 12 0 1

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, an d Ram ire z-Ra y a to 14 4 m on th s ’ i mpri so nm en t. The

de fen da nt s ap pe al th ei r s e n t e n ces

. Afte r rev ie win g th e arg um en ts rai se d by each

de fen da nt , we affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-I. J os e Cruz O jeda

On Octo be r 15

, 20 14

, Ojeda pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e at le as t

50 0 gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e. As th e fact ua l ba si s fo r th e pl ea, Ojeda ag reed th at

th e go ve rn m en t co ul d pr ov e th at in 20 13 he en te red in to an ag reem en t wit h ot he rs to

tra ffi c dr ug s in Mi nn es ot a, an d he di d in fact tra ffi c in at le as t 80 po un ds of

m et ha m ph et am in e inten de d fo r Mi nne sot a, inclu di ng la rg e qu an ti ti es th at were se iz ed

fro m co de fen da nt s in se ve ral st at es

. Th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR )

de sc rib ed Ojeda as th e le ad er of th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g or ga ni zat io n. Acco rd in g to th e PSR, Ojeda pa id a co co ns pi rat or to recr ui t m em be rs to joi n th e t r a f

f i c ki ng

or ga ni zat io n, pl an ne d co co ns pi rat or s ’ tri ps to tra ns po rt lo ad s of co cai ne an d

m et ha m ph et am in e, in st ru ct ed co co ns pi rat or s t o ren t a st or ag e un it to st or e dr ug s,
di rect ed co co ns pi rat or s to de po si t dr ug pr oc eed s in cas h in to ba nk acco un ts

, ob ta in ed

ve hi cl es fro m an au to de al ers hi p to tra ns po rt dr ug s fro m Cal ifo rn ia to Mi nn es ot a, an d

co m m un ic at ed wit h co co ns pi rat or s ab ou t co ll ect in g dr ug de bt s an d tra ns po rti ng an d

pu rch as in g d ru gs

.

The PSR cal cu la te d Ojeda’s of fen se le ve l at 41

, in cl ud in g a fo ur -le ve l in crea se

un de r USSG § 3B 1.1 (a) fo r be in g an or ga ni zer or le ad er an d a two -le ve l in crea se

un de r USSG § 2D1 .1(b )(5 ) fo r im po rti ng m et ha m

ph et am in e fro m M e x i c o to th e
Uni te d St at es

. At se nt en ci ng , t h e d i s t ric t co ur t ov erru le d Ojeda’s ob jecti on to th e

fo ur -le ve l in crea se fo r be in g a le ad er or or ga ni zer, bu t su st ai ne d hi s ob jecti on to th e

two -le ve l in crea se fo r im

po rti ng dr ug s fro m Mex ic o. W it h an of fen se le ve l of 39 an d

a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of II, th e ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge was 29 2 to

36 5 m on th s. Ojeda so ug ht a do wnwar d v a r i a n c e t o 12 0 m on th s, arg ui ng th at he

tu rn ed to dr ug tra ffi ck in g to pa y fo r hi s wife ’s m ed ic al tre at m en t. The di st ric t co ur t

gr an te d t he va ria nc e in pa rt a nd sen te nc ed Ojeda t o 2 40 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

-3

-On ap pe al

, Ojeda rai se s pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e ch al le ng es to hi s se nt en ce.

Fi rs t, Ojed a arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t fai le d to su ffi ci en tl y art ic ul at e it s an al y si s

of th e se nt en ci ng fact or s ou tl in e d i n 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Bec au se Ojeda di d no t

ob ject to th e ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n du rin g hi s se nt en ci ng

pr oc eed in g, we rev ie w f

or pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Mer rel l, 84 2 F.3 d 57 7, 58 4
(8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 6 )

. “A di st ric t co ur t is no t req ui red to reci te th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

m ech an ic al ly or to ‘m ak e sp eci fic fin di n g s on th e reco rd ’ ab ou t each fact or .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fry, 79 2 F.3 d 88 4, 89 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )). In st ead

, “ it si m pl y

m us t be cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t act ua ll y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a)

fact or s i n det erm in in g th e se nt en ce.” Unit ed Sta te s v . Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d 45 5, 4 61
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W al ki ng Eag le

, 55 3 F.3 d 65 4, 65 9
(8 th Cir . 20 09 ))

The di st ric t co ur t he ard ex te ns iv e arg um en ts fro m co un se l an d Ojeda re ga rd in g

th e pr op e r s e n t en ce to im po se , an d it rev ie wed th e PSR an d th e su bm is si on s of

co un se l. It gr an te d a d own ward va ria nc e, bu t no t to th e ex te nt so ug ht by Ojeda in

pa rt be cau se Ojeda was “ a le ad er of a dr ug tra ffi ck in g or ga ni zat io n th at ha d co nt act s

al l th e way ba ck do wn to Mex ic o an d th at jus t do es n’t ha p p e n o v e r n ig ht .” In it s

St at em en t of Rea so ns is su ed th e sa m e da y as th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t

fu rth er ex pl ai ne d it s se nt en ce: It st at ed th at Ojeda’s vi ol en t ch il dh oo d, acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y , an d la ck of si gn ifi can t pr io r jail ti m e su pp or te d a red uc ed se nt en ce, bu t

th e se rio us ne ss of th e of

fen se , ne ed to de te r cri m in al co nd uc t, an d p ro te ct io n o f th e

pu bl ic le d th e co ur t to co nc lu de th at on ly a sm al l v a r i a n ce was ap pr op ria te

. See

Uni te d St at es v. Krzy zan ia k, 70 2 F.3 d 10 82

, 10 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (rel y in g on “ [t]he

co ur t’s su bs eq ue nt writ te n St at em en t of Rea so ns ” to fin d th at th ere was no pl ai n erro r

in it s ex p l a n a t i o n of reas on s fo r reject in g th e de fen da nt ’s req ue st fo r a do wnwar d

va ria nc e). W e fin d no pr oc ed ur al erro r in t h e d i s t r i c t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of th e

se nt en ci ng fact or s.

-4

-Nex t, Ojeda arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er s e v e r a l r el ev an t

fact or s th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, sp eci fic al ly hi s li m it ed cri m in al

hi st or y , hi s reas on fo r en ga gi ng in dr ug tra ffi ck in g, hi s ro le as an av erag e pa rti ci pa nt

in th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g or ga ni zat io n, an d t h e a p p ro pr ia te se nt en ce to pr ot ect th e

pu bl ic . “ W e rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su bs ta nt iv e rea so na bl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r

an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Leo na rd

, 78 5 F.3 d 30 3, 30 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Lul eff, 57 4 F.3 d 56 6, 56 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). “ A se nt en ci ng

co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve

rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht t o a n im pr op er or irr el ev an t

fact or , or co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t

in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Id

. at 30 7 (q uo ti ng Lul eff, 5 7 4 F

. 3 d at 56 9)

. As

de sc rib ed ab ov e, co nt rary to Ojeda’s as se rti on , th e di st ric t co ur t di d rel y on m an y of

th e fact or s id en ti fie d by Ojeda in red uc in g h i s s e n te nc e be lo w th e gu id el in e ran ge

. As to Ojeda’s sp eci fic co nt en ti on th at he was on ly an av erag e pa rti ci pa nt in th e dr ug

tra ffi ck i n g or ga ni zat io n, th e di st ric t co ur t reject ed th is arg um en t. Ojeda do es no t

arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g a fo ur -le ve l in crea se to hi s of fen se le ve l

pu rs ua nt to USSG § 3B 1.1 (a) fo r be in g an or ga n i z e r or le ad er, an d we can fin d no

erro r in th e di st r i ct co ur t’s fai lu re to rel y on a co nt rary co nc lu si on whe n de ci di ng
wha t se nt en ce to im

po se

. See Uni te d St at es v. Irl m ei er, 75 0 F.3 d 75 9, 76 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ) (d efi ni ng “ ‘org an iz er’ an d ‘lead er’ br oa dl y ” to in cl ud e th os e who “ di rect or

en li st th e ai d o f ot he rs ” b ut who m ay “ no t b e th e on ly l ead er o r or ga ni zer” ). Giv en

th at th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ic it ly di sc us se d th e fact or s Ojeda rai se d an d se nt en ced hi m

“ be lo w th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed

it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” Uni te d St at es v. Bl ack

, 67 0 F.3 d

87 7, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S t at es v. McKa nr y , 62 8 F.3 d 10 10

, 10 22
(8 th Cir . 20 11 )). W e fi nd no su ch ab us e o f di sc ret io n h ere. 2

To th e ex te nt Ojeda arg ue s th at he qu al ifi ed fo r sa fet y va lv e rel ie f un de r 18 2

U.S.C. § 35 53 (f), he fai le d to rai se th is arg um en t be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t an d th us we

rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Alar co n- Garci a, 32 7 F.3 d 71 9, 72 2 (8 th
Ci r. 20 03 ). W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t com m it pl ai n erro r in fai li ng

-5

-F i n al ly, Ojeda rai se s pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e ch al le ng es to an al l e g e d

un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty be twee n hi s se nt en ce an d tho se of hi s co de fen da nt s.

He arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr o c e d u r al ly erre d in fai li ng to co ns id er 18 U.S.C.
§ 35 53 (a)( 6)

, whi ch st a te s th at th e co ur t sh al l co ns id er “ th e ne ed to av oi d

un warra nt ed se nt en c e di sp ari ti es am on g de fen da nt s wit h si m il ar reco rd s who ha ve
be en fo un d gu il ty of si m il ar co nd uc t.” Bec au se Ojeda di d no t ob ject at se nt en ci ng

to th e ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of § 35 53 (a)( 6 )

, w e rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. See U n i t ed St at es v. W il li am s, 62 4 F.3 d 88 9, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e

fin d no pr oc ed ur al erro r be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t reci te d th is fact or in it s St at em en t

of Rea so ns , he ard su bs ta nt ia l argu m en t from co un se l rega rd in g th e se nt en ces gi ve n

to co de fen da nt s, an d ba se d it s s e n te nc e in pa rt on Ojeda se tt in g up an d le ad in g th e
dr ug tra ffi ck in g or ga ni zat io n ru n by h is co de fen da nt s. In ad di ti on , Ojeda co nt en ds

th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be c a u s e co de fen da nt s who were
ch arg ed wit h th e sa m e cri m e rece iv ed se nt en ces ran gi ng fro m 60 to 12 0 mo n t hs

. Ojeda i gn or es th e q ua nt it y of d ru gs for whi ch he was he ld res po ns ib le , and th e fac t

th at hi s co de fen da nt s were ch arg ed as av erag e pa rti ci pa nt s in th e co ns pi racy, whe reas
he rece iv ed an of

fen se -le ve l in crea se fo r be in g a le ad er. “ [D]isp arat e se nt e n ces

am on g di ss im il ar defe nd an ts are no t un warra nt ed .” Fry, 79 2 F.3 d at 89 3 (em ph as is

om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng O je d a t o a
lo ng er te rm of i mp r i s o nm en t th an co de fen da nt s who pl ay ed sm al le r ro le s in th e

co ns pi racy.

to ap pl y th e sa fet y va lv e. Ojeda di d n ot m eet hi s bu rd en to sh ow th at he sa ti sf ie d
each sa fet y va lv e req ui rem en t: He un di sp ut ed ly had m or e th an on e cri m in al hi st or y
po in t, 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(1 ), di d no t cl ai m th a t h e sa ti sf ie d th e fu ll di sc lo su re
req ui rem en t, id

. § 35 53 (f)(5 ), an d fai le d to sh ow he was no t an or ga ni zer or le ad er of
th e co ns pi racy, id

. § 35 53 (f)(4 ). See Uni te d St at es v. Alv arad o– Ri ve ra, 41 2 F.3 d 94 2,
94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ) (“ Defen da n t s ha ve th e bu rd en to sh ow affi rm at iv el y th at th ey ha ve sat is fie d e ach req ui rem en t fo r th e sa fet y va lv e . . . .”).

-6

-II . Adria n Os w al do Rodr ig uez

Lik e Ojeda, Ro dr ig ue z pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e at le as t 50 0

gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e. At hi s Apr il 6, 20 15

, pl ea he ari ng , Ro dr ig ue z ad m it te d

t h a t he cam e to an ag reem en t wit h so m e of hi s co de fen da nt s to pa rti ci pa te i n t h e
di st rib ut io n o f na rco ti cs by tran sp or ti ng an d d el iv eri ng th e d ru gs an d by pe rm it ti ng
dr ug pr oc eed s to be de po si te d in to hi s ba n k a c c o un t. Acco rd in g to th e PSR, at hi s

pr es en te nc e in te rv ie w, R od ri g u e z ex pl ai ne d th at a “ kn own in di vi du al ” of fere d hi m

m on ey to de po si t cas h in to hi s ba nk acc ou nt s an d la te r to wit hd raw th e m on ey an d

de li ve r it to sp eci fie d lo cat io ns

. He al so ad m it te d th at in Ja nu ary 20 14 he as si st ed in

tra ns po rti ng an d de l iv eri ng 69 0 gr am s of he ro in to Crystal

, Mi nn es ot a. The PSR

cal cu la te d Ro dr ig ue z’s of fen se le ve l at 27 , a nd be cau se he ha d n o c riminal hi st or y , it pl aced hi m in cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y I fo r an ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge of 7 0 t o

87 m on th s. Bec au se Ro dr ig ue z was su bjec t to a m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 12 0

m on th s, t ha t b ecame his ad jus te d a dv is or y

gu id el in e ran ge

.

At hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Ro dr ig ue z arg ue d th at he was e l i g i b l e fo r a
red uc ti on in hi s ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge be cau se he m et t h e r e q u i r em en ts of th e

sa fet y va lv e. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f). Und er th at pr ov is io n, t he di st ric t co ur t m ay

im po se a se nt en ce be lo w th e m an da to ry m in im um if it fin ds at se nt en ci ng th at

, in te r
al ia

, “ th e de fen da nt ha s tru th fu ll y pr ov id ed to th e Gov er n men t al l in fo rm at io n an d

ev id en ce th e de fen da nt ha s co nc ern in g th e of fen se or of

fen se s t ha t wer e p art of t he

sa m e co ur se of co n d u c t or of a co m m on sc he m e or pl an .” 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(5 ).

The go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at Ro dr ig ue z ha d no t sa ti sf ie d th is s afet y va lv e

req ui rem en t. It st at ed th at Ro dr ig ue z p art ic ip at ed in a sa fet y va lv e p ro ffer wit h t he

go ve rn m en t on Sep te m

be r 17

, 20 15

, bu t he twi ce refu se d to pr ov id e th e na m e of th e

“ kn own in di vi du al ” who off ered hi m m on ey to co nd uc t t he ba nk acco un t t ran sf ers

. Acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t, Ro dr ig ue z st at ed th at he was no t go in g to “ an swe r an y

qu es ti on s ab ou t an y on e ex cep t fo r hi s own di rect in vo lv em en t.” Ro dr ig ue z’s co un se l

ag reed th at th is was a “ fai r reci ta ti on of th e fact s,” an d th at R o d r i gu ez fear ed th at

-7

-pr ov id in g sp ec i f i c n a mes wou ld co m

pr om is e th e sa fet y of hi s fam il y

. The di st ric t

co ur t fo un d th at Ro dr ig ue z ha d no t m et hi s bu rd en to pr ov e he was el ig ib le fo r sa fet y

va lv e rel ie f b e c a u s e h e refu se d to an swe r th e go ve rn m en t’s qu es ti on s ab ou t th e

“k no wn in di vi du al .” Afte r he ari ng arg um en ts fro m co un se l an d Ro dr ig ue z, th e
di st ric t co ur t s en te nc ed Ro dr ig ue z to th e m an da to ry m in im um of 1 20 m on th s.

Ro dr ig ue z ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at he di d no t tru th fu ll y pr ov id e

th e go ve rn m en t wit h al l in fo rm at io n an d ev id en ce he ha d co nc ern in g th e of fen se

. See

18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(5 ). Ro dr ig ue z be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g “ th at he qu al ifi es fo r

th is rel ie f, an d we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r th e di st ric t co ur t ’s f i nd in gs ab ou t th e

co m pl et en es s an d tru th f

u l n es s of a de fen da nt ’s pr ov is io n of in fo rm at io n.” Uni te d

S ta te s v. Hon ea, 66 0 F.3 d 31 8, 32 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v

. Agu il era, 62 5 F.3 d 48 2, 48 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). Ro dr ig ue z arg ue s th at he sa ti sf ie d th is

el em en t ba se d on th e in fo rm at io n he pr ov id ed at hi s pl ea he ari ng , an d in hi s

pr es en te nc e in te rv ie w, an d by no t di sp ut in g th e fact s in th e P S R. Alt ho ug h su ch 3

in fo rm at io n co ul d po te nt ia ll y sa ti sf y th e de fen da nt’ s bur de n to pr ovi de “ co m pl et e an d

tru th fu l in fo rm at io n,” he re, th e go ve rn m en t id e n ti fie d sp eci fic in fo rm at io n th at

Ro dr ig ue z refu se d to pr ov id e du rin g a sa fet y va lv e pr of fe r

— i

. e

. , th e na m e of th e

pe rs on who or ig in al ly co nn ect ed Ro dr ig ue z t o t h e dr ug tra ffi ck in g or ga ni zat io n.
Uni te d St at es v. Garci a, 67 5 F.3 d 10 91

, 10 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (fi nd in g no erro r in

Fo r th e f i r s t ti m e on ap pe al

, Ro dr ig ue z co nt en ds th at th e fu ll di sc lo su re 3

req ui rem en t of th e sa fet y va lv e is un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se it co m pe ls se lf
in cri m in at io n in vi ol at io n of the Fi fth Am en dm en t. As thi s cou rt has no t add res se d
th e is su e p res en te d b y

Ro dr ig ue z, th e d is tri ct co ur t cann ot ha ve pl ai nl y erre d i n n ot

su a sp on te fin di ng th at th e di sc lo su r e s r e q ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(5 ) vi ol at ed

Ro dr ig ue z’s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht s. See Uni te d St at es v. Ri st in e, 33 5 F.3 d 69 2, 69 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (co nc lu di ng di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it pl ai n erro r, de sp it e co nt rary
p r e ced en t fro m an ot he r ci rcu it

, whe re “ th e cu rren t la w co nc ern in g th is is su e is

un se tt le d” ). W e do no te

, ho wev er, th at ot he r ci rcu it s ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e sa fet y

va lv e do es no t im

pl ic at e th e rig ht ag ai ns t se lf- in cri m in at io n. See U n it ed St at es v. W arre n, 3 38 F.3d 25 8, 2 64 (3d Cir . 20 03 ) (co ll ect in g c as es ).

-8

-de ni al of sa fe t y va lv e rel ie f whe re “ th e go ve rn m en t rep res en te d to th e co ur t th at

Garci a d id no t g iv e a co m pl et e an d a ccu rat e acc ou nt in g o f hi s rol e in th e cri m e an d

ga ve ex am

pl es of ho w Garci a was no nc om pl ia nt ”). Lik e in G arci a, Ro dr ig ue z’s

co un se l “ di d no t pu t fo r w a r d a n y ev id en ce to co un te r th is as se ss m en t by th e

go ve rn m en t,” a nd in fact co nc ed ed th at th e g ov ern m en t’s d es cri pt io n o f th e p ro ffer

was accu rat e an d th a t Ro dr ig ue z was un wil li ng to pr ov id e na m es of sp eci fic

in di vi du al s. Id

. As a res ul t, Ro dr ig ue z fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en to sh ow th at he

pr ov id ed co m

pl et e an d tru th fu l in fo rm at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. San ch ez, 47 5 F.3 d

97 8, 98 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ Refu si ng to an swe r qu es ti on s or res po nd to in qu iri es ab ou t

rel ev an t co nd uc t is in co ns is te nt wit h pr ov id in g a co m pl et e an d t r ut hf

ul acco un t of

th at co nd uc t.”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Ro m o, 81 F.3 d 84

, 85 (8 th Ci r. 19 9 6 ) ( t o r ecei ve

sa fet y va lv e rel ie f, de fen da nt is ob li ga te d to pr ov id e in fo rm at io n ab ou t id en ti ti es an d

pa rti ci pa ti on of ot he rs in vo lv ed in ch ai n of di st rib ut io n)

. W e th eref or e fin d no erro r

in th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt’s co nc lu si on th at Ro dr ig ue z di d no t qu al ify fo r sa fet y va lv e
rel ie f. 4

II I. J av ie r Gua da lu pe Ra m ir ez-Ra ya

Ram ire z-Ra y a pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e at le as t 50 0 gra m s of

m et ha m ph et am in e. The PSR cal cu la te d an of fen se le ve l of 35 an d a cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y of II ba se d on two gr os s mi s d e meano r of fen se s Ram ire z-Ra y a co m m it te d

as a juv en il e. At th e se nt en c i n g h e a r i n g, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Ram ire z-Ra y a’s

m ot io n fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re, fin di ng th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y was ov ers ta te d an d

red uc in g hi s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y to I. The ad jus te d gu id el in e ran ge was 16 8 to

21 0 m on th s. Defen se co un se l arg ue d fo r a v a r i a n c e to 12 0 m on th s, th e m an da to ry

Ro dr ig ue z al so arg ue s th a t hi s 12 0- m on th se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y 4

un reas on ab le

. W he re, as he re, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t m ak e a m ot io n fo r su bs ta nt ia l

as si st an ce an d de fen da nt do e s no t qu al ify fo r sa fet y va lv e rel ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed au th or it y to red uc e Ro dr ig ue z’s se nt en ce be lo w th e m an da to ry m in im um

. See
Uni te d S ta te s v . Cha co n, 3 30 F.3d 10 65 , 10 66 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

-9

-mi n i m

um , ba se d pr im ari ly on th e ab us e an d vi ol en ce Ram ire z-Ra y a su ffer ed as a
ch il d. Th e d is tri ct co ur t s en te nc ed Ram ire z-Ra y a to 14 4 m on th s.

On ap pe al , R am ire z-Ra y a arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly err ed by

f ai li ng to gi ve an y reas on s to su pp or t it s ch os en se nt en ce. As ex pl ai ne d b y t h e

Su pr em e Co ur t in Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 50 (2 00 7)

, aft er se tt li ng on th e

ap pr op ria te se nt en ce, a di st ric t co ur t “ m us t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce

to al lo w fo r m ean in gf

ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w an d to pr om ot e th e pe rcep ti on of fai r

se nt en ci ng .” Bec au se Ram ire z-Ra y a fai le d to ob ject on th is gr ou nd at se nt en ci ng , we

co nd uc t a pl ai n erro r rev ie w. See Uni te d St at es v. Ch av arri a

- O r t i z , 82 8 F.3 d 66 8,

67 0– 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Eve n as su m in g th at Ram ire z-Ra y a de m on st rat ed th at th e
di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n was in ad eq ua te

, we can no t fin d pl ai n erro r be cau se he ha s

no t a t te m pt ed to sh ow “ th at a m or e de ta il ed ex pl an at io n wou ld ha ve res ul te d in a

li gh te r se nt en ce.” Id

. at 67 1. W it ho ut ev id en ce of pr ejud ic e, we co nc lu de th ere was

no rev ers ib le erro r.

In ad di ti on , Ram ire z-Ra y a a r g u e s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er se ve ral of th e arg um en ts he

m ad e at se nt en ci ng , sp eci fic al ly hi s la ck of gui da nc e du rin g ch il dh oo d, th e su bs ta nt ia l

ti m e he sp en t in fo st er care , h is vi ol en t an d ab us iv e c hi ld ho od , h is li m it ed cri m in al

hi st or y , an d hi s fin an ci al reas o ns fo r be co m in g in vo lv ed wit h th e co ns pi racy. W e

rev ie w t h e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce “ un de r a de fere nt ia l

ab us e-o f- d i s cret io n st an da rd .” Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 41

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced

Ram ire z-Ra y a to 14 4 m on th s— a te rm 24 m on th s lo wer th an th e lo w en d of hi s
ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. W he re t h e d is tri ct co ur t im po se d a be lo w-Gui de li ne s

se nt en ce, it is “ ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e ” th at su ch a se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. See Uni te d St at es v. Lazar sk i, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e

co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce i m po se d h ere was no t u nr eas on ab ly hig h.

-1 0-IV. Co ncl us io n

The jud gm en ts are af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-