2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-6-2007 

# U SA v . Espino s a-C ruz P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2525

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Esp inos a -C r uz " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 621. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/621T h e H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 2525

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DA VI D ESPI NO SA- CRU Z, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00696- 01) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I

Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 24, 2007 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, F U E N T E S and A L A R C Ó N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2007 )-2- OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. D ru g e n f o rc e m e n t ag e n ts in ter c e p ted D a v id E sp in o sa -C ru z a t th e P h ilad e lp h ia In ter n a tio n a l A irp o rt c a rry in g 4 1 k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e . E sp in o sa late r p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f

p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m o re th a n 5 k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(A ). T h e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 12 0 m on t hs i n p ri son, t he st atutorym i nim um un der § 84 1(b)( 1)( A ). O n ap peal, E spi no sa ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l ydeni ed hi s r eques tt o cons i dera l ow ers ent ence u n d e rt h e “ s a f

e t yv a l v e ” p r o v i s i o n , 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. O n O ct ober1, 2003, a fe der al t as k for ce, compri s ed of a gent s of the D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on and l ocal l aw enfor cement , l earned thatl uggage c ont ai ni ng coca i ne had be en s m uggl ed aboa r d a fl i ghtfr om San J uan, Puer t o R i co t o Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a. T as k for ce a gent s s ubs equent l ys t opped Espi nos a, a pas s engeron t he fl i ght , as he w as exi t i ng t he bagga ge cl ai m w i t h m at chi ng gr eys ui t cas es . A ft erdi s pl ay i ng hi s t i cketand i dent i fi cat i on, E s pi nos a t ol d t he age nt s he w as i n t ow n fora tw o- w eek v a c a tio n , b u t co u ld n o t n a m e th e h o tel h e w o u ld b e sta y in g a t. H e a lso sta ted th a t, a l t h o u g h t h e t wo s u i t c a s e s we r e h i s , h e h a d n o tp a c k e d th e m. E s pi nos a then cons ent ed t o t he age nt s ’ r eques tt o s ear ch hi s bags ; the age nt s foundA n o th e r m a n , G ilb e rto V e lez , w a s a lso a p p re h e n d e d th a t d a yin c o n n e c tio n w ith 1 th e tas k f o rc e ’s o p e ra tio n s a t P h ilad e lp h ia’ s a irp o rt. T h is r an g e w as b ase d o n a total of fe n se lev el of

3 1 an d a C ri m inal H ist o ry 2 C ateg o ryo f I. T he fi ve r equi r ement s forappl i cat i on of the s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on ar e: 3 ( 1) t he def

endantdoes nothave mor e than 1 cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt , as determ i ned un der the sentenci ng gu i deli nes; ( 2) t he def

endantdi d notus e vi ol ence orcr edi bl e thr eat s of vi ol ence or pos s es s a fi r earm orot herdanger ous w eapon ( ori nduce a notherpart i ci pant t o do s o) i n connec t i on w i t h t he off ens e; ( 3) t he off

ens e di d notr es ul ti n death ors er i ous bodi l yi nj uryt o anyper s on; -3- b ri c k s o f a w h ite s u b s ta n c e la te r d e te rm in e d to b e a p p ro x im a te ly 4 1 k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e . E s pi nos a expl ai ned t o t he age nt s t hathe had be en hi r ed i n Puer t o R i co bya fr i end named “A bel ” t o del i vert he s ui t cas es i n excha nge for$3, 000 t o $5, 000. 1 O n F e b ru a ry9 , 2 0 0 4 , E sp in o sa p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han 5 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . A ts ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tcal cul at ed a gui del i ne r ange of 108 t o 135 m ont hs . T he C our tr ecogni zed, how ever , thata s t atut orym i ni m um r equi r ed 2 th a t itse n ten c e E sp in o sa to a t lea st 1 2 0 m o n th s in p riso n . E sp in o sa a sk e d th e C o u rt to s ent ence hi m pur s uantt o t he s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on, 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) , underw hi ch he coul d r ece i ve a gui del i ne- r ange s ent ence “w i t houtr egar d forthe s t atut orym i ni m um sen tenc e.” U n it ed S tat es v . S ab ir , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). B efor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , t he part i es di s put ed w hetherthe s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on w a s a p p lica b le. S p e c if ica lly , the g o v e rn m e n t co n tes ted w h e th e r E sp in o sa h a d “ tru th f u lly 3( 4) t he def endantw as notan or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , ors upervi s orof ot her s i n t he off

ens e, as det erm i ned underthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes and w as n o t e n g a g e d in a c o n tin u in g c ri m in a l e n te rp ri s e , a s d e f in e d in [ 2 1 U .S .C . § 848] ; and ( 5) notl at ert han the t i m e of the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the def endanthas t rut hful l ypr ovi ded t o the G overnm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence the d e f e n d a n th a s c o n c e r n i n g t h e o f f e n s e o ro f

f e n s e s th a twe r e p a r to f

th e s a me cour s e of c onductorof a c om m on s cheme orpl an, butthe fa ctthatthe defe ndanthas no r el evantorus eful ot heri nform at i on t o pr ovi de orthatthe G overnm enti s al r eadyaw ar e of the i nform at i on s hal l notpr ecl ude a d e ter m in a tio n b yth e c o u rt th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a s c o m p lied w ith th is re q u ire m e n t. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (f). -4- pr ovi ded . . . al l i nform at i on and evi dence the def endanthas conce r ni ng the off ens e, ” as requi red by18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) (5) . T he g ov ernm ent expl ai ned his proffer as fol l ow s:

[T ]he d ef

en d an t st ated that h e h ad m ad e a p rev iou s tr ip [ to ca rry d ru g s] in A u g u st o f

2 0 0 3 . T h a t trip w a s f

ro m P u e rto R ico . [H ]is u lti m a te des t i nat i on w as t o be . . . N ew Y or k and the fl i ghtw as t o go thr ough Or l a n d o . . . . [ W ] h e n t h e p l a n e s t o p p e d i n Or l a n d o , [ h o we v e r , ] h e b e c a me a f r a i d a n d h e we n tb a c k t o P u e r t o Ri c o , [ i . e . , h e ] d i d n o tf i n i s h th e tr i p . He d id n o t k n o w w h a t ev e n tu a llyh a p p e n e d to th e b lu e su itca se th a t h e w a s to p ic k u p in N e w Y o rk . . . . [Espi nos a] t ol d t he G overnm entathi s pr offe rthatthe s ame per s on w ho had hi r ed hi m for. . . t he fi r s ttr i p— a per s on he know s onl yas A bel

— appr oache d hi m aboutthe s econd tr i p. H e s ai d t hathe w as cont act ed on hi s cel l ul art el ephone. H e has s t at ed thathe has neverm etthi s per s on A b e l f a c e to f a c e . . . . H e s a id h e h a s n o id e a w h o h e w a s s u p p o s e d to d e liv e r t h e d ru g s to . H e di dn’ tknow . . . w hathot el he w as goi ng t o orw her e he w as s t ay i ng and d id n o t k n o w h o w h e w a s g o in g to b e p a id late r o r h o w th e yw e re g o in g to fi nd hi m exce ptt hathe w as goi ng t o r eturn t o Puer t o R i co af t erhi s tr i p and som eho w be p ai d; and t hat he trust ed these peop l e t o p ayhim and that these peopl e w ho he neve rm etfac e t o fac e, and thes e peopl e w ho he l etdow n on t he p revi ou s tri p, t rust ed h i m no tt o leave w i t h the drugs or sel l the d rugs.T h e D istric t C o u rt sta ted : “I re lyo n y o u r f a ilu re to d isc lo se in f

o rm a tio n w ith 4 re s p e c t to w h a t o c c u rr e d in P u e rt o R ic o b e f o re y o u r b o a rd in g o f

th e p la n e to P h ila d e lp h ia . I fi nd t haty ou cl ear l yknew m or e than y ou have di s cl os ed t o t he G overnm entw i t h r es pect t o t hatas pectof the tr ans act i on. ” A pp. 41. -5- A pp. at26- 28. D efe ns e couns el conce ded thatthi s w as “an i ncr edi bl e s t ory , ” butar gued that E s pi nos a w as “nota s ophi s t i cat ed drug deal er , ” and ha d no “s t r eetoper at i on” or“drug connec t i ons . ” A pp. at30. E s pi nos a hi m s el f expl ai ned thathe t ol d hi s cont act s “thatI w as goi ng t o be l odged i n t he cl os es thot el and theyt ol d m e t o gr ab a c ab and t o t el l the ca b dr i vert o t ake me t o t he nea r es thot el and theyw er e goi ng t o cont actm e ther e. ” A pp. at 3 6 . H e a lso stated that h e h ad n ev er se en the lu g g ag e c o n tai n ing the c o ca ine b ef o re a r r i v i n g i n P h i l a d e l p h i a ; i n s t e a d , h e h a d s i mp l yb e e n t o l d o v e rth e p h o n e t o l o o k f o rt wo d a rk g re ysu itca se s u p o n a rriv a l. T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed thatE s pi nos a had f ai l ed t o t ruthful l ypr ovi de the governm entw i t h al l i nform at i on r egar di ng hi s offe ns e. Speci fi cal l y , i tfound thathe fai l ed t o di s cl os e compl et e i nform at i on abouthow he had be come i nvol ved i n t he drug t r ans act i on. T hus , fi ndi ng t he s afe tyval ve pr ovi s i on i nappl i cabl e, the C our ti m pos ed the

4 m andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence of 120 m ont hs i n pr i s on. II. O n appea l , E s pi nos a ar gues t hathi s pr offe r“w as truthful even though i tw as b iza rre a n d , the re f

o re , the D istric t C o u rt e rre d in n o t se n ten c in g h im u n d e r th e sa f e ty val ve pr ovi s i on. ” B r . at11. E s pi nos a had the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thathe w as ent i t l edT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have 5 j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291, U ni t ed St at es v. N avarr o, 476 F. 3d 188, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo and f actual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . Sabi r , 117 F. 3d at752. E s pi nos a al s o ar gues on appea l thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l ycons i der ed the 6 s e nt e nc i ng gu i de l i ne s t o b e mand a t ory , i n v i ol a t i on of U ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Es p i n o s a , h o we v e r , wa s s e n t e n c e d t o th e s t a tu t o r ymi n i mu m u n d e r2 1 U. S . C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; w e ther efor e r ej ecthi s cont ent i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 464 F . 3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). -6- to th e b e n e f

it o f th e p ro v isio n . S a b ir, 1 1 7 F .3 d a t 7 5 4 . In o u r v iew , the re is n o b a sis to di s turb hi s s ent ence . 5 T h e D istric t C o u rt w a s in th e b e st p o sitio n to a ss e ss th e c o m p lete n e ss a n d v e ra c ity o f E sp ino sa’s a cc o u n t of h is of fe n se, an d itd id so m o re tha n ad eq u ately . T h e C o u rt l i s t ened t o t he governm ent ’ s ver s i on of the pr offe r , as w el l as thatof def ens e couns el and E s pi nos a. I tcar eful l yques t i oned both t he governm entand Espi nos a aboutw hys om eone w oul d at t empt t o s m uggl e appr oxi m at el y$800, 000 w or t h of coc ai ne i nt o Phi l adel phi a for peopl e he ha d neverm et , and w hyt hos e peopl e w oul d t rus tE s pi nos a w i t h s uch an under t aki ng. E s pi nos a’ s vague r es pons es t o t hes e ques t i ons s t r ai n cr edul i t y . H avi ng rev iew ed the re co rd o f th e se n tenc ing p roc ee d ing , w e d o n o t believe the D istri ct C o u rt cl ear l yerr ed i n fi ndi ng t hatE s pi nos a had mor e i nform at i on than he r el ay ed t o t he g o v ern m en t. A s a re su lt , an d fo r th e tho rou g h an d p ersu asiv e re aso n s stated b ythe C o u rt in th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyru led th a t E sp in o sa f a iled to qual i fyforappl i cat i on of the s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on. 6 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l a f f i r m.