FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 10, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 15031 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 3 0 1 - C R - DT KH 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 F R A N K E U G E N E K E R L E Y , 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 f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 10, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ft erpl ea di ng gu i l ty, F ra nk E . K er l ey appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence2

f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 1 0 0 o rm o r e m a r iju a n a p la n ts , in v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S . C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 a n d 1 8 U. S . C . § 2 . Af t e rr e v i e w, we a f f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D K er l ey pl ed gu i l ty pursuantt o an o ra l pl eaagre em ent . D uri ng the pl ea h e a r in g , th e p a r tie s e n te r e d th e te r m s o f th e o r a l p le a a g r e e m e n t in to th e r e c o r d . U n d e rth e te r m s , K e r le y a g r e e d to p le a d g u ilty to th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y c o u n t in e xc ha nge f

orthe gove r nm e ntdi s m i s s i ng a drug pos s e s s i on c ounta nd notobj e c t i ng t o K erl ey’ s recei v i n g a g u i d el i n es ad j u stm en tfo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty. D ur i ng the pl e a he a r i ng, K e r l e y ’ s c ouns e l s um m a r i z e d the s ubs t a nc e of the pl e a ne got i a t i ons , s t a t i ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tthe gove r nm e ntha d a gr e e d not t o obj e c tt o K e r l e y ’ s r e que s tf ors a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2, a s f o llo w s : [ K e r le y ’s C o u n s e l]: . . . [ H ]e is p le a d in g to o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y , . .

. and I al so un ders t and b as ed on the t erm s of our – ei ther they a re g o in g to a g r e e o rn o t o b je c t to th e f

a c t b y c o m in g f

o r w a r d h e is e nt i t l e d t o a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty . T he G ove rnm e nti s notgoi ng t o obj e c torpos s i bl y a gr e e , de pe ndi ng on the t e r m of a r t , the gui de l i ne s a f e ty v a l v e wo u l d p r o b a b l y a p p l y i f h e h a s th e o n e p o i n tth a twe thi nk tha the ha s a s f

a ra s pr i orc onvi c t i on, a nd I thi nk the G o v ern m en tw o u l d al so p ro b ab l y ag ree o r n o to b j ect , actu al l y, prob abl y a ff

i rm at i vel y a gree thathe i s s t i l l i n the po sture of bas ed upon hi s de br i e f

i ngs a nd i nf

or m a t i on he i s s t i l l i n a pos tur e of r e a pi ng tha ti nf or m a t i on i nt o a pos s i bl e 5K 1 orR ul e 35.3

T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad res ervat i on s abo utthe part i es ’ deci si on t o ent er i nt o an o ra l pl ea agre em entand d i re ct ed the part i es t o p utevery t erm of the pl ea a gr e e m e nti n the r e c or d. I n r e s pons e , the gove r nm e ntc l a r i f i e d tha ti tw a s m a ki ng no prom i se s w i th regard t o w hether K er l ey w as el i gi bl e f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef u n d er U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1 . 2 , as fo l l o w s: [ G ove r nm e nt ] : I f

I m a y , Y ourH onor , the onl y thi ng the G ove r nm e nt i s a gree i ng t o w i th res pectt o F ra nk E ug ene K er l ey i s tw o l evel a c c e p ta n c e f

o rc o m in g f

o r w a r d if th e c o u r t d o e s a c c e p t a n d a d ju d ic a te gu i l ty a nd the di sm i ss al of C ou nt2. A l l of the ot her thi ng s a re pe ndi ng c onc e r ni ng c r i m i na l hi s t or y . I c a nnotm a ke a gr e e m e nt s or obl i ga t e the G ove r nm e ntw i th r e s pe c tt o w he the rhe i s e l i gi bl e f or s a f e ty v a lv e . T h e r e a r e o n ly tw o a g r e e m e n ts to r e c o m m e n d tw o le v e ls f ora c c e pt a nc e , a s w e l l a s , di s m i s s a l of C ount2. W he n the di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d K e r l e y ’ s c ouns e l i f thi s w a s hi s unde r s t a ndi ng of the p l ea ag reem en t , K erl ey’ s co u n sel rep l i ed th ati tw as, as fo l l o w s:

T H E C O U R T : M r . G e l e ty , i s tha ty ourunde r s t a ndi ng? [K er l ey ’ s c ou nsel ] : Iti s. S he ca n’ tagre e – I hat e t o say anythi ng ni ce abou ther, she c an’ tagre e bec ause , i n fai rnes s, w e nee d to f ir m u p th a t o n e p o in t o n th e c r im in a l h is to r y . I a m c o m f o r ta b le s a y i ng i f i ti s one poi nta s I a nt i c i pa t e I a m c om f or t a bl e s he w i l l not obj e c tors he w i l l a gr e e the s a f e ty va l ve a ppl i e s , i s tha tf a i re nough? T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n a s ke d K e r l e y di r e c t l y w he the rtha tw a s hi s unde r s t a ndi ng of th e p l ea ag reem en t , an d K erl ey resp o n d ed th ati tw as. K e r l e y ’ s P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( “ P S I ” ) s t a t e d tha tK e r l e y , a l ong w i th h i s c od ef

endantfa ther a nd brot her, had o pera t ed fi ve m ar i j uana grow ho uses4

w i th m ore than 2 00 pl ant s. T he P S I c hara ct er i ze d K er l ey as i nv ol ved i n t he ent i re op er at i on , re spon si bl e f or es t abl i shi ng the ho uses , re crui t i ng hi s f am i l y m em bers a n d d is tr ib u tin g th e m a r iju a n a w h ile r e c e iv in g th e m a jo r ity o f th e p r o f its . C o n s e q u e n tly , th e P S I r e c o m m e n d e d a tw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3B 1. 1(c) as an organi ze r. A dd i t i on al l y, beca use K er l ey w as an organi ze r/m anager of the offens e, the P S I c on cl ud ed thatK er l ey w as i nel i gi bl e f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

, de s pi t e the f

a c ttha tK e r l e y ha d pr ovi de d a truthf ul s a f e ty - va l ve s t a t e m e ntt o the go vernm ent . W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 17 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , th e P S I c a lc u la te d K e r le y ’s a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s r a n g e a s 2 4 to 3 0 m o n th s . H ow ever , the P S I not ed that , un der 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(B ), the st atut ory ma n d a t o r y - mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e o f 6 0 mo n th s ’ i mp r i s o n me n ta p p l i e d a n d b e c a me the gu i del i ne se nt ence . K e r l e y obj e c t e d t o the or ga ni z e re nha nc e m e nta nd the s a f e ty - va l ve di squal i fi ca t i on . K er l ey ar gu ed thatthe go vernm enthad b re ac hed t he pl ea a gr e e m e ntby pr ovi di ng i nf or m a t i on t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e a nd the s e nt e nc i ng c our ttha tr e s ul t e d i n the P S I ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on f orthe or ga ni z e re nha nc e m e nta nd the de ni a l of

s a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

. K e r l e y a l s o obj e c t e d t o va r i ous f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons i n the P S I r e l a t i ng t o K e r l e y ’ s r ol e i n the of f e ns e , i nc l udi ng the a s s e r t i ons tha the w as re spon si bl e f

or es t abl i shi ng the m ar i

j uana-grow i ng op er at i on , thathe supp l i ed5

e qui pm e nta nd pr ovi de d i ns truc t i on on the ope r a t i on of the gr ow hous e s , tha the r e c rui t e d othe r s a nd tha the ha d pr of i t e d s i gni f

i c a nt l y f r om the ope r a t i on. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the go vernm entca l l ed D rug E nforcement A gency sp ec ial ag en t D ea n W o lp er t. W o lp er t t es ti fied th at d u rin g in terv iew s w ith K er ley’s c o d e f e n d a n ts , W o lp e r t le a r n e d th a t K e r le y h a d a p p r o a c h e d th e m to p a r tic ip a te in th e m a r iju a n a - g r o w in g s c h e m e , p r o v id e d th e m w ith m a te r ia ls a n d p la n t “c lo n e s ,” c he c ke d on pl a ntgr ow th, pr oc e s s e d the pr oduc t , s ol d the pr oduc tt o a di s tr i but or a n d r e c e iv e d a p e r c e n ta g e o f th e p r o f its f r o m th e m a r iju a n a g r o w n in th e ir r e s i de nc e s . T o c ount e rthe gove r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e , K e r l e y c a l l e d hi s f a the r , w ho te s tif ie d th a t th e o p e r a tio n w a s “a f a m ily th in g ” w ith “n o b o s s ” a n d “e v e r y b o d y in ch arg e o f th ei r o w n o p erat i o n . ” H o w ev er, K erl ey’ s fath er ad m i t t ed o n cro ssexam i nat i on thatK er l ey prov i ded p l ant“ cl on es ” a nd equi pm ent , as si st ed i n eac h ha r ve s t , di s tr i but e d the pr oduc ta nd w a s the onl y de f e nda nti nvol ve d i n a l l f

i ve g ro w h o u ses. A ft erhear i ng ar gu m ent s f rom coun se l , the di stri ctcourtfoun d t hatthe pl ea a gr e e m e ntdi d noti nc l ude a ny t e r m s r e l a t i ng t o a n or ga ni z e r/m a na ge re nha nc e m e nt unde r§ 3B 1. 1( c ) ora s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on unde r§ 5C 1. 2. I n a ddi t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tK e r l e y ’ s a c t i ons i n r e c rui t i ng, pr ovi di ng pl a nt s a nd e qui pm e nt , m oni t or i ng the pl a nt s ’ gr ow th, ha r ve s t i ng, pr oc e s s i ng a nd di s tr i but i ngWe reviewde novo whe ther the g overnment has breached a plea agreement. United 1 States v. Mahique, 150 F .3d 1330, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998). 6 the prod uct , and shari ng i n h i s c od ef endant s’ profi t s c at egori ze d K er l ey as an o rg an i zer/m an ag er u n d er § 3 B 1 . 1 (c) an d th u s ren d ered h i m i n el i g i b l e fo r safetyv al v e rel i ef. T h e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced K erl ey t o th e st atu t o ry m an d at o rym in im u m 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e . K e r le y f ile d th is a p p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Br e a c h o f

t he Pl e a A g r e e m e nt O n app ea l , K er l ey ar gu es thatthe go vernm entbrea ched the oral pl ea agre em entby pres ent i ng evi dence t o sup po rta f i nd i ng thathe w as an or ga ni z e r/m a na ge rof

the c ons pi r a c y pur s ua ntt o § 3B 1. 1( c ) a nd thus i ne l i gi bl e f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

. 1 T h e g o v e r n m e n t is b o u n d b y p r o m is e s it m a k e s to a d e f e n d a n t in o r d e rto i nduc e the de f

e nda ntt o pl e a d gui l ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 132 F . 3d 628, 630 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). In det erm i ni ng w hether the go vernm entbrea ched the pl ea a gr e e m e nt , w e f

i r s tde t e r m i ne the s c ope of the gove r nm e nt ’ s pr om i s e s . R a ul e r s on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 901 F . 2d 1009, 1011 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W he the rthe gove r nm e nt v io lated th e p ro m ises o f th e p lea a g re em en t i s ju d g ed ac co rd in g to th e d ef en d an t’ s r e a s ona bl e unde r s t a ndi ng a tthe t i m e tha the e nt e r e d hi s pl e a . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ay l or, 77 F . 3d 36 8, 37 0 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ).7

H er e, the re cord show s thatthe oral pl eaagre em entconsi st ed of three una m bi guous t e r m s : ( 1) K e r l e y w oul d pl e a d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y ; ( 2) the gove r nm e ntw oul d di s m i s s the c ountof pos s e s s i on; a nd ( 3) the gove r nm e nt w oul d notobj e c tt o K e r l e y r e c e i vi ng a tw o- poi ntr e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty . T he pl e a a gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d no r e s tr i c t i ons on the gove r nm e nt w ith r e g a r d to a r o le e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 3 B 1 .1 ( c ) o rs a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. F urtherm ore, K er l ey concurred w i th t he go vernm ent ’ s s t at em entdu ri ng the pl ea h ea rin g th at th e g o v er n m en t w as m ak in g n o p ro m ise w ith re g ar d to K er ley’s el i gi bi l i ty f

or a s af ety- val ve re du ct i on . A l l re fe re nces t o t he po ss i bi l i ty of K er l ey re ce i vi ng a s af

ety- val ve re du ct i on atse nt enci ng w er e c ou ched i n con di t i on al l angu age a nd cl ea rl y di d n otconst i tut e aprom i se by the go vernm entno tt o o bj ec t shou l d K er l ey se ek sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef . T here fore , the go vernm entdi d n otbrea ch the pl e a a gr e e m e ntby pr e s e nt i ng e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng K e r l e y ’ s or ga ni z e rr ol e i n the offe nse. B. O r g a ni z e r R o l e Enha nc e m e nt K er l ey al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng thathe w as an organi ze r pursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1(c) and t hatK er l ey , there fore , di d n otm ee t the c r i t e r i a f

ora s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on, pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3553( f ) a ndWe reviewthe district court’s f actual determinations in denying a safe ty-valvereduc tion 2 for c lear error. United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997). We also review for clea r er ror the district c ourt’s determination of a de fenda nt’s role in the off

ense. United States v. Me sa , 2 47 F .3 d 1 16 5, 11 68 (2 00 1) . H ow e ver, thedis tric t c ourt ’s a pp lic atio n o f t

heguide lin e s to its factual f

indings is re viewed denovo. United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838, 847 (11th Cir. 1998). To be e ligible f

or a sa fety-valvereduc tion, the defendant must show that: (1) he ha s no 3 moretha n o nec rimin a l hi sto ry

po int ; ( 2) hedid

no t us evio le nc eor

thre ats o f v iol e nc eor

po sse ss a fire arm in c onne c tio n w iththeof fens e ; ( 3) theof

fens edid no t re su lt in d e ath o r s e ri ou s b odily injury ; (4) he w as not an org anizer, leader, ma nag er or supervisor of

the offense “a s determined under thesentenc ing guidelines” a nd was not eng ag ed in a c ontinuing criminal enterprise ; and (5) hetruthfully

provided to the g overnment all information and evidence a bout the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) -(5) ; U.S.S.G. § 5C 1.2(a) (1)- (5). Whil e the g overnment bear s the burden of provingthe applica

bility of a § 3B 1.1(c) 4 manag erial role enha

ncement, United States v. Yates, 990 F .2d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1993), the defendant bea

rs the burden of provinghis eligibility for the sa fety-valvereduc tion. Cruz , 106 F.3d at 1557. 8 U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2. 2 T he s a f e ty - va l ve pr ovi s i on of

§ 5C 1. 2 i m pl e m e nt s 18 U . S . C . § 3553( f ) , a nd al l o w s a co u rtt o sen t en ce a d efen d an tw i th o u treg ard t o th e st atu t o ry m an d at o rym i ni m um se nt ence i f the defendantm ee t s f i ve cr i t er i a. U ni t ed S t at es v. B row nl ee , 204 F . 3d 1302, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T he r e i s no di s put e tha tK e r l e y m e tf ourof 3 the fi ve cr i t er i a. T he on l y i ss ue i n t hi s app ea l i s w hether K er l eyw as an “ organi ze r, l ea der, m anager, or supervi sor of others i n t he offens e. ” 18 U . S . C . 35 53 (f ); U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 2(a) . If he w as , then t he tw o-po i ntenhancem entun der § 3B 1. 1(c) w as prop er , and K er l ey w as i nel i gi bl e f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

. 4 S ect i o n 3 B 1 . 1 (c) p ro v i d es fo r a tw o -l ev el i n crease in a d efen d an t ’ s o ffen se l evel i f he w as “ an organi ze r, l ea der, m anager, or supervi sor i n any cr i m i nal9

ac t i vi ty . . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1(c) . “ [T ] he as se rt i on of cont rol or i nfl uence over on l y one i nd i vi du al i s e no ug h t o sup po rta § 3B 1. 1(c) enhancem ent . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . J im in e z , 2 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; s e e a ls o U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 c m t . n. 2 ( “ T o qua l i f

y f ora n a dj us tm e ntunde rthi s s e c t i on, the de f e nda ntm us tha ve been the organi ze r, l ea der, m anager, or supervi sor of one or m ore other part i ci pant s. ”) . F ac t ors t o con si der i n d et erm i ni ng w hether the defendantqu al i fi es f orthe § 3B 1. 1( c ) r ol e e nha nc e m e nti nc l ude : ( 1) the e xe r c i s e of de c i s i on- m a ki ng a uthor i ty ; ( 2) the na tur e of pa r t i c i pa t i on; ( 3) the r e c rui tm e ntof a c c om pl i c e s ; ( 4) the c l a i m e d r i ghtt o a l a r ge rs ha r e of the f rui t s of the c r i m e ; ( 5) the de gr e e of pa r t i c i pa t i on i n pl a nni ng oror ga ni z i ng the of f e ns e ; ( 6) the na tur e a nd s c ope of the ille g a l a c tiv ity ; a n d ( 7 ) th e d e g r e e o f c o n tr o l a n d a u th o r ity e x e r c is e d o v e ro th e r s . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1, c m t . n. 4. H e r e , th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rin c onc l udi ng tha tK e r l e y w a s a n or ga ni z e r/m a na ge runde r§ 3B 1. 1( c ) . T he g o v e r n m e n t p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e th a t K e r le y h a d g r e a t in f lu e n c e o v e rh is c ode f e nda nt s a nd pl a y e d a s i gni f i c a ntr ol e i n or ga ni z i ng a nd m a i nt a i ni ng the m a r i j ua na - gr ow i ng ope r a t i on. K e r l e y i ni t i a t e d the s c he m e t o gr ow m a r i j ua na pl ant s a tthe fi ve ho uses ; re crui t ed hi s c od ef endant s t o j oi n i n t he sc hem e; prov i ded h i s co d efen d an t s w i th eq u i p m en tan d p l an t s; ch eck ed o n th ei r o p erat i o n s;10

harves t ed and p roce ss ed the m ar i j uana fr om thei r pl ant s a nd t oo k i tt o a di stri bu t or; a n d to o k a s ig n if

ic a n t s h a r e o f

h is c o d e f

e n d a n ts ’ p r o f

its f r o m th e s a le s . B e c a us e K e r l e y w a s a n or ga ni z e r/m a na ge r , the di s tr i c tc our ta l s o di d not cl ea rl y e rri n fi nd i ng thatK er l ey w as i nel i gi bl e f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

. AF F I RME D.