T he Hon. Jam es G

. C ar r , U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e fort he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of O hi o, si t t i ng b y * d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 06a0696n .06 Fi led : Sep te mb er 2 6, 20 06 No . 05- 5365 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. OM ARM EN DO ZA, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE W ESTER N DI ST RI CT OF T EN NE SSEE

Before: D AU GH TREY and CO OK, Ci rc uitJu dg es, and CA RR , D is tr ict J udg e. *
PER C UR IA M. The defendant, Omar Mendoz a, pleade d gui lty to a mul ti ple -c ount ind ictment charg ing hi m w it h par ti ci pati on i n a maj or

i ntersta te c ocai ne di str ibu ti on operati on. In ex chang e for Me ndoza’s g uil ty pl ea, t he g ov er nment ha d ag re ed to re commend a reduct ion of his offense lev el, bas ed on acc eptanc e of respon si bil ity

under section 3E1. 1 of the United Sta tes Sente ncing Guide lines (U.S.S.G .), and not to opp ose app lication o f

the “safety v alve” provisi on of section 2D1.1 (b)(6). At senten cing, how ever, the g ov er nment arg ued ag ain st adj ust ments under thos e s entenc ing g uid eli nes based on condu ct by

the defendant t hat c ame to li g ht after the ple a ag re ement w as ex ecut ed. The dis tr ict c our

t c oncl uded t hat a secti on 3E1.1 re duct ion w as not a ppropr iat e butappl ied theNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 2 - safety v alv e prov is ion i n s ect ion 2D 1.1( b) (6 ), se ntenc ing the defendant t o 200 mont hs of inc ar cerati on – a ter m of impr is onment t hat fel l nei ther w it hin the low er

rang e propose d by defense c ounse l nor

w it hin the hig her

rang e adv ocat ed by

the prosec uti on. On ap peal , t he defendant ini ti all y arg ued t hat the s e ntenc ing order sh oul d be
v acat ed an d hi s c ase re manded for re sent enci ng bas ed on the g ov er nment’ s fai lure to abi de by the ter ms of

the ple a agreement. How ev er , in a “s uppl emental bri ef” f il ed by new couns el, the defendant now co ntends onl y

that t h e dist ri ct cour

t fail ed to appl y

se cti on 3E1.1 cor re ctl y

to the fact s i n thi s cas e and, therefore, il leg all y depr iv ed th e defendant of a three- lev el dow nw ard depar ture for acc eptanc e of respon si bil ity . Beca use couns el for the defend antadvanced o nly the latter claim a t oral argume nt as a b asis for v acat ing his clie nt’s sen ten ce, it app ears tha t the defend anthas ab and one d his cont ent ion th at his sent ence w as imp osed in v iolation of Sant obe llo v . New

Y ork, 404 U.S. 257 (1971 ). How ever, out of

an ab und ance of

cautio n, w e have rev iew ed th e sen ten cing procedu re in li g ht of bot h c lai ms. W e find no bas is on w hic h to v acat e the defendant’ s s entenc e under eit her anal y si s, and w e the re fore affirm the d is tr ict c our t’ s j udg ment.
I. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
T he reco rd estab lishes tha t betw een 199 6 an d 20 03, the de fend antparticipat ed in marijua na and coc ain e traff ic ki ng betw een El Pas o, Tex as, and Me mphis , Tennes see. Dur in g t h e fi rs th a l f o f 2 0 0 3 , h e re c e i v e d i n M e mp h i s a p p ro x i ma t e l y n i n e s h i p me n t s of coc ain e w eig hin g approx imat ely 1 0 k ilog ra ms eac h. He als o g av e the person w hoNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 3 - del iv ered th e narcot ic s to Me mphis approx imat ely $200,00 0 per shi pment for pay ment t o the s uppl iers i n M ex ic o. Pr ior to th e se s h ipment s, betw een 199 8 and Jul y 2001, the defendant had deli v ered to Memphis approx imat ely f iv e kil og ra ms of

cocai ne per mont h, for a total of about 180 k il og ra ms. T he d efend ant wa s indicted in 2004 on cha rg es of consp iracy

to distribut e mo re th a n f ive kilo gra m s of co ca in e , con sp ira cy to co m m itm o n e y lau n d e rin g, m o n e y lau n d e rin g, and ai din g and abett ing money l aunder ing , w it h an addi ti onal co unt c all ing for c ri minal forfeiture. He ag re ed to p le a d gu ilty to all co unts of the i ndi ctmenti n ex chang e for the g ov er nment’ s reco m m e n dati ons that “t he D efendant’ s b ase offense lev el be c alc ula ted usi ng at lea st 50 KG but les s t han 150 KG of coca ine ” and t hat: (1 ) the D efendant recei v e full credi t for acc eptanc e of re sp o nsi bil ity . . . prov ide d the D efendant’ s conduct c onti nues to c lea rl y demons trate acc eptanc e of hi s p ersonal respon si bil ity f o r his offense up to the date of sent enci ng ; ( 2) the Defendantnot re cei v e a s entenc ing enhanc ement for the Defendant ’s role i n the offense . . . ; ( 3) the Defendantbe sente nced at t he low end of the appl ic abl e g uid eli ne rang e; ( 4) the Gov er nment w ill not oppos e the D efendant recei v ing a [ “s afetyv alv e” ] dow nw ard depar ture . . . prov ide d the U nit ed St ates Probati on Office deter mines that the D efendant is enti tl ed to su ch dow nw ard depart ure in D efendant’ s P re -S entenc e R epor t.
At t he pl ea hear ing , t he di str ict c our t ex pla ine d a ll o f

t h e c harg es inc lud ed i n the ind ic t me n t , a s w e l l a s t h e m a x i mu m s e n t e n c e fo r e a c h

. T h e A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t ates Atto rney, at the cou rt’s request, then summ ariz ed th e term s of the ple a agreem ent . He st a te d , o n th e rec o rd , t h e fo llo wing:No. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 4 - In e xch a n ge for the d efendant’ s p lea of g uil ty i n thi s c ase the g ov er nment ag re es to recommend the d efendant’ s b ase offense lev el be c alc ula ted u si ng a t l east50 k il og ra ms butnot more than a hundred and fiftyki log ra ms of coc ain e. In t his reg ard M r. M endoz a understa nds that this re co mmendati on i s n ot bin din g on t he c our

t. Y our H onor , nei ther

the g ov er nment no r any l aw enforc em e n t ca n or does ma ke an y

pro m is e s o r repre sent ation s to Mr. M end oza as to w hathis sent ence w il l be. Y ou H onor , pursuantto Rul e 11( e) (1 )( B) and in cons ide ra ti on for the defendant’ s p lea of g uil ty the g ov er nment w il l re commend t hat t he defendant receive fu ll credit for accep tan ce of respon sibility

pro vid ed th e de fend ant ’s c o n d u c tco n t in u e s t o cl e a rl y d e m o n s t ra t e a c c e p t a n c e o f re s p o n s ib il it y. Next tha t the defend ant not receive a sent encin g enh ance me nt fo r his role in the o ff ense. Next t hat t he defendant w il l be s entenc ed to the low end of the guideli ne ra ng e. And f in a l l y , Y o u r

H o n o r , t h e g o v e r n me n td o e s n o to p p o s e t h e d e fe n dant re cei v ing a downward depar ture ac cordin g to the p ro v is ion of the U nit ed Sta tes S ent encin g Guide line 2D1. 1(b)(6) or the safety [v alve] prov isions, Y our H onor , prov ide d that the U nit ed St ates Probati on Office deter mines that the d efendant i s e nti tl ed to su ch a dow nw ard depar ture. You r Ho n o r, t h e g o ve rn m e n t a n ti cip a te s b u t d o e s n o t c o m m itto f ili n g a moti on fo r d o wnward depar ture i n thi s c ase. I n the ev ent t he g ov er nment does file a motion for dow nw ard depart ure, Mr . Mendoz a understa nds that the recommendat ion [i s] not b ind ing on t he c our t. Y our H onor , M r. M endoz a ag re es [that] c e rt ain proper ty i denti fied i n the Ver ified C omplai nt of F or fei ture .

. . i s s ubj ectto forfeiture to the U nit ed Stat es . . . . After a c oll oq uy

w it h the defendant, the di str ict cour t accep ted the plea ag re ement, ordered th a t itbe f ile d in th e rec o rd , a n d co n ti n u e d th e ca se fo r se n te n cin g.No. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 5 - In t h e p re - s e n t e n c e re p o rt t h a t w a s fi l e d p r i o r t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a ri ng , t he prob at i on o ffic er

c on c l ud ed t ha t th e de fen da ntw as res po ns i bl e for at l ea s t 29 0 k i l og ram s of coca ine and comput ed th e bas e offense lev el at 38

. The re por t als o ind ic ated that the follo w ing adjust ments w ere appropr iat e: a tw o- lev el enhanc ement for conv icti on of

money lau nder ing , a four- lev el enhanc ement for the ro le of org ani z er

or l eader i n the cr imi n al activity , and a t hree -lev el redu ction for a ccept ance o f respon sibility . Th e resulting of fense level w as 41 , for w hich th e sen ten ce range w as 32 4 to 40 5 m ont hs. T he rep ort also cont ain ed a c a lculati on of the sent ence ra ng e under the ple a ag re ement. Bas ed on the li mit e d q u a n t i t y

o f c o c a i n e i n d i c a t e d i n t h e a g re e me n t , t h e b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e l w a s s e tat 36. T h e ac cept ance of res ponsi bil ity and safety

v alv e reduct ion s, combi ned w it h the mandator

y enhanc ement for

money lau nder ing , y iel ded a total offense lev el of 33 , w it h a correspo ndin g range of 135 to 168 mon ths. The pre- sent ence re por t al so ind ic ated that, w hil e the defendant w as in detent ion pr ior to t h e A p ril plea h ear ing , a phone c all betw een t he defendant and hi s father w as recorde d in w hich Mend oza’s fa the r said to him , “Y ou’ll me et w ith [de fense coun sel], te ll them y ou onl y

kn ow people b y

ni ck names, Pul g a, P ato. Tell [y our co -d efendant] t o s ay

the same n ames.” A sec ond phone call w it h the defendant’ s father w as als o recorded, dur ing
w hic h he sai d to the defendant, “As usual, tell them that y ou onl y kn ow peopl e by

si g ht an d di dn ’ t k no w

n am es . J us t s ay

n i c k na me s , y ou d on ’ t k no w mo re or w he re th ey ’ re from . Ev en te ll the same t hin g t o [defense co unsel ]. D on’ t s ig n anythi ng .” Ac cordin g to the re por t, on J une 29, 2004, t wo m o n th s after t he pl ea hear ing , w hil e i n a h old ing ce ll , t heNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 6 - defendant y ell ed “ to ot her defendants aw ait ing co urt hea ri ng s” thatone o f hi s c odefendants – w hom he i denti fied by name – “t alk ed to o much .”
T he def end antresp ond ed to the p re-sente nce repo rt with a request tha t the court adhere to the p lea ag re ement, i n cludi ng a do w nw ard depar ture under

U .S.S .G. se cti on 5K1 .1, b ased on the fact th at he had “ext e n s iv ely de-b riefed a nd p rov ided v alua ble inform a ti o n t o the Gov er nment [ that]

. . . l ed to the ar re st and i ndi ctmentof” o ther par ti ci pants i n the di str ibu ti o n o p e ra ti on, a s w ell as i nformati on per tai nin g to the met hod of smug g li ng the coc ain e in f ro m M ex ic o. In a posi ti on pape r filed i n respon se to t he present ence report an d the d efend ant ’s o bjectio ns, the governme nt not if ied th e cou rt that in tho se “deb rief ing sessions” w ith Im migration a nd Cust om s of f icers, the d efend anthad told them “ that he only

knew people bysig ht, that he didn’ t know names, and that if he d id know names itw as onl y

ni ck names. ” The g ov er nment al so ind ic ated that members of the defendant’ s famil y

had tr ied to cont actthe co- defendant w hom M endoz a had acc used of “t alk ing too much” and that the d efendant had als o att empted to c o ntac t, direct ly and throug h hi s famil y , ano ther one of his co -d efendants, al l of w h ich vio lat ed g ov er nment orders and put v ar iou s w it ness es and ot hers a t r is k o f harm. The g ov er nment c ontende d that t h i s c o n d u c td i d “ n o tc o n t i n u e t o c l e a r l y d e mo n s t ra t e a c c e p t a n c e o f p e rs o nal re spons ibi li ty ” and t hat t he offense l ev el re duct ion co ntempl ated by the ple a ag re ement
w as the refore notwarranted

. T he gov ernm entd id notargue thatthe de fend ant ’s condu ct am oun ted to obst ruction of justice butdid decline to f ile a mo tion for a downw ard de partu reNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 7 - under se cti on 5K1 .1, cont endi ng thatthe defendant had b e en of no as si sta nce to t he g ov er nment.
At t he ens uin g se ntenc ing hear ing , t he g ov er nment offered t est imony by an a g ent that suppo rt ed th e facts rela ted i n the pre- sent ence repor t reg ardin g the defendant’ s p hone calls w ith his fath er and state me nts ab outhis co-defend antwh il e i n a holdin g cell. Moreover, the agen t also test if ied th at th e de fend anthad f o ll o wed his fath er’s advice
reg ardi ng th e prov i s i on of ni c k na me s on l y ; th at th e de fen da nt ha d no t c oo pe rat ed at all before the supercedi ng i ndi ctmentw as re tur ned on Apr il 6, 2004; and t hat t he i nformati on prov ide d bythe defendant did not lead to the arrestor indi ctmentof any one els e c onnec ted
w it h the offenses . The di str ict c our

t c re dit e d t h e go v er nment’ s s ubmis si on th at t he defendant had made threats ag ain st his co -d efendants and may hav e tipped a c o- cons pirator to flee th e jur is dicti on. The cour

t als o accept ed the gov er nment’ s arg ument that the defendant had “not prov id[ed ] any subst ant ial coop eratio n . . . thatw ould w arrant a downw ard de partu re if the gui d e lin es w ere i n pl ace. ” Bas ed on thes e det er minat ion s, the c our t den ied the defendant a secti on 5K1 .1 reduct ion for subs tanti al ass is tanc e, as w ell as a s ect ion 3E1. 1 re duct ion for a cc eptanc e of respon si bil ity , “e v en thoug h he

. . . pl ed g uil ty and sav ed th e g ov er nment t he bene fit of a t ri al. ” F oll ow ing the g ov er nment’ s recommendat ion in the p lea agreem entto limit the cond uct cha rg ed to no more tha n15 0 kilograms of cocaine , the court cal c u l a t e d a b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e l o f 3 6 a n d a l s o g ra n t e d t h e s a fe t y v a l v e re d u c t i on.No. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 8 - Ul ti matel y , t he c our

t i mposed a s entenc e of 20 0 months , w hic h w as 32 months abov e the max imum s e n t e n c e c o n t e mp l a t e d b y t h e p l e a a g re e me n t , b u t 1 2 4 mo n t h s l e s s t h a n the mini mum sent ence poss ibl e under the fact s repor ted b y the probati on office i n the present ence re por

t.
II. DI SC US SION
A . Al leg ed Err

or by t he Di st rict C ourt On ap peal , t he defendant arg ues that the d is tr ict c ourt erred i n fail ing to g ra nt a three- lev el re duct ion i n hi s b ase offense lev el for ac cept ance of res ponsi bili ty under U. S.S. G. secti on 3E1 .1. W e g ather thatthe g is t of hi s c ontent ion i s t hat h e w as enti tl ed to s uch an adj ust ment, firs t, by not putti ng the g ov er nment t o tr ial a n d , secon d, “ by tr uthfull y admi tt[ ing ] t he c onduc t c ompri si ng the offenses of conv icti on.” Ac cordin g to the defendant, the fact that he “ w as not t otal ly forth comi ng aboutthe names and i denti ti es of the o ther ‘ par ti ci pants ’ in cr imi nal act iv ity shoul d onl y affectthe appl ic abi li ty

of a § 5 K1.1 downw ard de partu re and not a § 3E1. 1 do w nward adjustm ent .” ( Em pha sis omitte d.)
In hi s b ri ef, Me ndoz a as ser ts, co rre ct ly, t hat u nder the appl ic ati on not e to sec ti on 3E1 .1, h e w as “n o trequired . . . to v olun tee r, or af f irmatively

adm it, relevant cond uct beyond the of

fense s of

conviction.” W hen , howev er, as he re, the of fense of conviction is consp iracy , the defend ant ’s w ithho lding of informa tion regarding co-consp irator cond uctNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 9 - in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

t h e co n s p ir a c y m a y we ll p ro vid e le s s t h a n a f u ll a c c o u n to f h is o wn inv olv ement i n the co nspi ra cy , j ust ify ing deni al of a secti on 3E1 .1 reduct ion

. In ad dition to det ermin ing that the defend antwa s less than truthf ul abo ut th e f ull s c o p e o f

t h e co n s p ir a c y, t h e d is t ri c tco u rta ls o fo u n d t h a th e “ m a y ve ry we ll h a ve encou ra g ed .

. . so meone to flee t he j ur is dicti on[,]

. . . has put other i ndi v idu als i n dang er [,]

. . . and [has] made w hat a ppear [s] to be v eil ed th re ats .” The de fendant now arg ues that thi s r uli ng by

the dis tr ict c ourt c annot be s ust ain ed bec ause, i f true , i t w oul d s uppor t an
u p wa rd a d ju stm entund er section 3C1.1 for obstru ction o f justice. But, no such upward adj ust ment w as appl ied and, inste ad, the defendant w as aw arded a dow nw ard adj ust ment und er the sa fety v alve prov isio n i n s ection 2D1.1 (b)(6). The defend antclaims tha t this in co n gru it y is em b le m a ti c o f fa u lt y sen te n cin g an d requ ire s u s t o ord e r re -se n te n cin g. W e c oncl ude t hat a remand for re -s entenc ing i s unneces sar y here. The appl ic ati on of the saf ety v alve prov ision und er the circumsta nces o f this case is perha ps pa rado x ical, butthere is no quest ion th at the district judge ma de f indings tha t the defend ant ’s condu ct “d [i d] no t s ati sfyei ther the letter

or the spi ri t of the ru les thatsp eak to a cc e p ta n ce of re spons ibi li ty .” M oreov er , t hose factual findi ng s are fully suppo rt ed by the re cord and are, the refore, no t clearly

erroneo us. Finally , w e con clude thatt h e 20 0-mo nth sente nce impos ed on the d efendant w as reasonab le, w hic h i s t he s tandard by w hic h i t mus t be re v iew ed unde r the mand ate o f Uni ted S tates v . Bo oker , 543 U .S. 220, 261 ( 2005)

. B. Allege d Breach of the Plea Agree mentNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 10 - The defendant’ s i nit ial br ief al leg ed that the g ov er nment ha d fail ed to abi de by the ter ms of the ple a ag re ement by arg uin g ag ain st re duct ion s i n s entenc e under both se cti on 3E1.1, for a cc eptanc e of respon si bil ity , and the safety v alv e prov is ion i n s ect ion 2D1 .1( b) (6 ). W it h reg ard to secti on 3E1.1, the g ov er nment c lai med thatthe defendant had faile d to est abl is h tha t he h a d a cc epted re spons ibi li ty for t he offenses o f conv icti on, poin ting to the te stimo ny of the governmen t agent at the sente ncing hea ring to th e ef fect th a t the defendant’ s c onduc t had put the s afetyof other co -d efendants at r is k a nd w as more in confor mity

w ith the i nst ru cti ons that he recei v ed from h is father than w it h the p ro vis io n s o f

t h e a gr e e m e n t ; t h a th e h a d m in im ize d h is o wn i n vo lve m e n ti n t h e co n s p ir a c y, as w ell as that of

his co- cons pirators and his family in Tex as; and that he had cl aimed that he k new hi s c o- cons pirators o nly by si g ht or by nick names. The ag ent t est ified thathe h ad bee n ab le to conf irm tha t the d efend antknew perso ns in Memp his w ho were inv olved in the d ru g -t ra ff ic ki ng operati on butw ere noti denti fied b y t he defendant. I ndeed, the g ov er nment ev entual ly dec ide d notto cal l Me ndoz a as a g ra nd jur y w it ness based on it s belief that“his i nforma tion was unreliable , pretty nonsp ecif ic, untrut hf ul.”
Al thoug h thi s e v ide nce is rele v ant pr inc ipa ll y to the g ov er nment’ s d eter minat ion to foreg o a secti on 5K1.1 moti on for a dow nw ard depar ture bas ed on subs tanti al ass is tanc e, iti s als o rel ev ant to the defendant’ s acc eptanc e of respo nsi bil ity

under sec ti on 3E1.1, the appl ica ti on not es to w hic h req uire, among othe r thi ng s, cons ide ra ti on of w hether the defendant “ tr uthfull y

admi t[ s] the cond uctco mpri si ng the offense( s) of conv icti on, a nd tr uthfull y admit [s] or

[doe s] not fal sel y

deny [] any

addi ti onal rele v ant c onduc t for w hic h theNo. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 11 - defendant i s a cc ountabl e,” and w hether he p ro v ide s “ v olu ntar

y assi sta nce to au thor it ies in the recov er

y of the fr uit s a nd i nst ru mental it ies of the o ffense. ” U .S. S ENT ENCI NG G UI DE L I NE S M AN U AL § 3E1. 1 c mt. n. 1( a) ( 2005)

. Und er the Gui del ine s, a defendant seek ing a reduct ion for acc e p ta n ce of res ponsi bil ity “ mayremain si len t i n respect t o re lev ant c onduc t bey ond the offense of conv icti on w it hout affect ing hi s a bil ity to obtai n a re duct ion under

[s ect ion 3E1. 1].” I d. But, as prev iou sl y note d, t he “ offense of conv icti on” in this case is consp iracy , ma king m ore tha n just the d efend ant ’s a ctiv ity rele v antt o inquiry by the g ov er nment.
Mo re ov er , alt houg h the d is tr ict c our t i n thi s c ase did not make a sp eci fic fin din g that the defend anthad engaged in the o bstruct ion of ju stice, perh aps beca use th e prese nte nce repo rt did not m ent ion it and the governmen t did no t argue such ob struction , the record cl ear ly i ndi cat es that follo w ing hi s a rrest , t h e defendant eng ag ed i n obs tr uct iv e behav ior – in failing to identif

y co-consp irators in Memp his w hose ident ities w ere know n to him , in follo w ing hi s father ’s ins tr uct ion s w it h re g ard to the names of t hose inv olv ed i n the offenses charged againstthe de fend ant , in atte mp ting to conta ct certain o f his co-consp irators direct ly or throug h his family , i n c all ing on t hem to maint ain si len ce, and, i n one ins tanc e, in endang er ing the li fe of a c o- cons pirator

by sp re adi ng i nformati on th at he w as coope ra ti ng w it h the g ov er nment. Clea rl y , the reco rd w oul d hav e suppor ted a f ind ing that the d efendant eng ag ed i n the obs tr uct ion of jus ti ce, w hic h findi ng w oul d precl ude a sec ti on 3E1.1 re duct ion i n al l but t he mos t extraordin ar y ci rc umstan ces . See id. § 3C 1.1 c mt. nn .3-No. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 12 - 4 (d esc ri bin g condu ct to w hic h the adj ust ment for “o bst ru cti ng or imped in g the adm inistration of

justice” app lies).
W e con clude thatthe governmen t did no t breach th e plea agreeme nt w ith regard to i ts chang e of posi ti on on a dow nw ard adjus tment under secti on 3E1.1. Any

co mplai nt conc er nin g the g ov er nment’ s p osi ti on on appl ic ati on of the safety v alv e prov is ion mustbe c o n s ide re d moot, g i v e n t h e fa c tt h a tt h e d e fe n d a n ta c t u a l l y re c e i v e d t h e b e n e fi to f a downw ard ad justm entund er section 2D1.1 (b)(6).
III . CO NC LU SION
W e ackn owl edge th at th e p rinciples und erly ing the Sup reme Court’s opinio n in Santob ell o v . N ew

Y or k, 404 U.S . 257 , 262 ( 1971) , req uire tha t “ w hen a ple a rest s i n any si g nific ant d eg re e on a promis e or ag re ement of t he prosec utor , so that itca n be sai d to be a par t of t he ind ucement or cons ide ra ti on, s uch promis e mustbe ful fill ed.” I n thi s c ase, the record ref le ct s that the defendant’ s p lea di d i ndeed “ re st on th e ag re ement of the prosec utor .” Atthe same t ime, ho wever , t he record fail s t o demons trate t hat t he g ov er nment reneg ed on it s promi se w it h reg ard to a s ect ion 3E1. 1 recommendat ion , g iv en ev ide nce in the record tha t t he defendant w as not i n s ubsta n ti a l compl ian ce w it h the requireme nts of

section 3E1. 1. Certainly, w e can notsayt h a tt he d istrict court erred in f inding tha t a redu c t io n for accep tan ce of respon sibility

w as un w arrante d, bo th factu ally and leg all y , and w e therefore AFF IR M the jud g ment of t he dis tr ict c our t, inc or porati ng the cour t’ s s entenc ing order

.No. 05-5365

Un ite d S tates v . M e nd oza

- 13 -