FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 14, 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. 07- 10731 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 5 2 0 - C R - UU B 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 H E C T O R P E R E Z - C O R D O V A , 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 14, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:“When re viewinga district cour t’s safe ty-valvedecision, wereview for c lear error a 1 district court’s factual determinations and de novo the c ourt’s leg al interpretation of the statutes and sentencingguidelines.” United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (alterations and quotation marks omitted). 2 A f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty , H e c t orP e r e z - C or dova a ppe a l s hi s c onc ur r e nt120- m on th sent ence s f

or conspi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th t he i nt entt o d i stri bu t e a m i xture a nd s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng a de t e c t a bl e a m ountof c oc a i ne , a nd a t t e m pt e d pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a m i xtur e a nd s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng a de t e c t a bl e a m ount o f c o c a i n e , b o th i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 6 . Af t e rr e v i e w, we affi rm P erez-C o rd o v a’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. O n a p p e a l, P e r e z - C o r d o v a a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g h im s a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

ba s e d on P e r e z - C or dova ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de c om pl e t e a nd tru th f u l in f o r m a tio n a b o u t h is o f

f e n s e s to th e g o v e r n m e n t. 1 T he sa fe ty- val ve prov i si on re qu i re s adi stri ctcourtt o cal cul at e the advi sory gui de l i ne s r a nge of

c e r t a i n drug of

f e ns e de f e nda nt s w i thoutr e ga r d t o a ny m a n d a to r y - m in im u m s e n te n c e if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

in d s th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t m e e ts the fi ve cr i t er i a s etforth i n U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 2. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. Q ui r a nt e , 486 F . 3d 1273, 1275 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . I n a ddi t i on, a de f e nda ntw ho m eet s th e safety-v al v e cri t eri a i s en t i t l ed t o a tw o -l ev el red u ct i o n i n h i s o ffen se l evel . U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(11). O f the f i ve c r i t e r i a , the onl y one a ti s s ue i n thi s a ppe a l r e qui r e s the de f e nda ntWe re je c t Pe re z-C ordo va ’s c onte nti on tha t th edis tric t c ourt ’s sa fety-v a lverulin gis 2 insufficient to per

mit meaningf

ul appellate review. The district cour t made an e xplicit finding that Perez-Cordova did not qualify for sa fety-valverelief

beca use he did not truthfully

provide all of the infor

mation and evidenc e that he had concerningthe offenses and that Perez-Cordova was not beingcompletely candid a bout his role in the offenses. Fur thermore , we rejec t Perez-Cordova’ s argument that the district court merely deferre d to the g overnment’s assessment of thetruthfulness of Pere z-Cordova’s statement. Therec ord demonstrates that, after

reviewingthe transc ripts of the tape d conver sations with the g overnment’s informant and he aringtestimony from both Pere z-Cordova and his co- conspirator , Ramon Ot e ro -M ontij o, thedis tric t c ourt ma deindepend e nt s a fety-v a lvefinding s, sp e c if ic a lly noting that its safe ty-valvedeter mination was “ba sed on what [ it] heard” from Perez-Cordova at th e s ec o n d

s ent en ci n g h eari n g. 3 “n o t la te rth a n th e tim e o f th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ” to p r o v id e tru th f u l a n d c o m p le te i nf or m a t i on c onc e r ni ng the of f e ns e orof

f e ns e s tha tw e r e pa r tof

the s a m e c our s e of c o n d u c t o ra c o m m o n s c h e m e o rp la n . U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 ( a ) ( 5 ) ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (f )( 5). “ T he qu es t i on of w hether the i nform at i on [thatthe defendant ] supp l i ed t o the gove r nm e nt. . . w a s truthf ul a nd c om pl e t e . . . i s a f a c tua l f i ndi ng f orthe d is tr ic t c o u r t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . B r o w n le e , 2 0 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .

“ [ L ] i e s a nd om i s s i ons do not , a s a m a t t e rof l a w , di s qua l i f

y a de f e nda ntf r om sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

so l on g as the defendantm akes a c om pl et e a nd truthful proffe r notl a t e rtha n the c om m e nc e m e ntof the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. ” I d. T he de f e nda nt be a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng the truthf

ul ne s s of hi s pr of f e r . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l ki nt a s , 470 F . 3d 1339, 1345 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s pi nos a , 172 F . 3d 79 5, 79 7 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). W e f i nd no cl ea r e rr or i n t he di stri ctcourt ’ s s af ety- val ve rul i ng . P er ez 24

C or dova di d nots a t i s f

y hi s bur de n of

pr ovi ng tha thi s s a f

e ty - va l ve s t a t e m e nt truthf ul l y pr ovi de d the gove r nm e ntw i th a l l of the i nf or m a t i on he ha d c onc e r ni ng h is o f f e n s e c o n d u c t. T h e g o v e r n m e n t d is p u te d w h e th e rP e r e z ’s o r a l s ta te m e n t, w hi c h w a s gi ve n t o the gove r nm e ntout s i de the pr e s e nc e of the di s tr i c tc our ta nd w as never r educed t o w ri t i ng , w as truthful . In re spon se , P er ez -C ordo va proffer ed h is te s tim o n y a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . T h is te s tim o n y , w h ic h r e la te d to h is r o le in th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y , w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith o th e re v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . F ir s t, P e r e z - C o r d o v a ’s s e n te n c in g te s tim o n y w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith th e f a c ts t o w hi c h he s t i pul a t e d a thi s c ha nge of pl e a he a r i ng. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , P e r e z - C or dova ad m i t t ed ath i s ch an g e o f p l ea h eari n g th ath e ask ed o n e o f th e co -co n sp i rat o rs, R am on O t er o-M on t i

j o, t o d ri ve fr om O rl ando t o F ortL auderdal e a nd i nstruct ed O t er o-M on t i

j o t o b e the dri ver f

or a thi rd co-c on spi ra t or, A m ador S uare z, w ho w as com pl et i ng a drug t ra nsac t i on . A tse nt enci ng , ho w ever , P er ez -C ordo va t es t i fi ed thati tw as S uare z, ra ther than h i m se l f, w ho as ked O t er o-M on t i j o t o com e t o F ort L a ude r da l e f

r om O r l a ndo t o be S ua r e z ’ s dr i ve ra nd t ol d O t e r o- M ont i j o a boutthe u p co m i n g d ru g tran sact i o n . P erez-C o rd o v a d i d n o tat t em p tt o reco n ci l e th ese i nc ons i s t e nc i e s ore xpl a i n w hi c h ve r s i on of e ve nt s w a s the truth. S e c ond, P e r e z - C or dova ’ s t e s t i m ony a ts e nt e nc i ng w a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the t e s t i m ony of

O t e r o- M ont i

j o a s t o w he the rP e r e z - C or dova r e c rui t e d hi m t o j oi n the5

d ru g c o n s p ir a c y d u r in g a b a rb e q u e in T e x a s . P e r e z - C o r d o v a d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is te s tim o n y , a s o p p o s e d to O te r o - M o n tijo ’s te s tim o n y , w a s th e tru th . F i na l l y , P e r e z - C or dova ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the ha d nothi ng f ur the rt o do w i th the drug deal or w i th t he go vernm ent ’ s c on fi dent i al i nform antaf t erhi s w i fe w as hos pi t a l i z e d i n T e xa s w a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the t a pe d t e l e phone c onve r s a t i ons su b m i t t ed b y th e g o v ern m en tatth e sen t en ci n g h eari n g . F o r al l o f th ese reaso n s, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e r ri n di s c r e di t i ng P e r e z - C or dova ’ s t e s t i m ony w he n i tc onc l ude d tha tP e r e z - C or dova w a s not“ be i ng c om pl e t e l y c a ndi d” a bout h i s ro l e i n th e o ffen ses. W h i l e earl i er l i es an d o m i ssi o n s d o n o t , as a m at t er o f l aw , d i sq u al i fy a de f e nda ntf r om s a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

, he r e , P e r e z - C or dova f

a i l e d t o pr ovi de a ny e xpl a na t i on f

orhi s i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a ts e nt e nc i ng. T he s e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a nd the f a c ttha tP e r e z - C or dova ’ s s e nt e nc i ng t e s t i m ony a t t e m pt e d t o por tr a y hi m a s pl a y i ng a m or e l i m i t e d r ol e i n the drug c ons pi r a c y pr ovi de d a s uf f i c i e ntba s i s f

orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c onc l ude tha tP e r e z - C or dova di d notpr ovi de c om pl e t e a nd truthf ul i nform at i on and t o d eny P er ez -C ordo va sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef . AF F I RME D.