Opinion ID: 2997171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: A. Background The “safety valve” provision permits a court to sentence certain first-time, non-violent drug offenders who were not organizers of criminal activity and who made a good faith effort to cooperate with the Government to a sentence under the federal guidelines instead of the applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; see also United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144, 147-48 (7th Cir. 1996) (discussing the safety valve’s legislative history and explaining that Congress intended to remedy the former system, under which higher-level drug offenders with information to trade often fared better than less culpable offenders because courts could impose a 6 No. 03-3934 sentence below the statutory minimum only when the Government filed a motion based on substantial assistance). A sentencing court “shall” apply the safety valve provision for any defendant who meets five criteria: (1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense; (3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person; (4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and (5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) (emphasis added). The only question before us on appeal is whether the district court correctly determined that Mr. Montes did not satisfy the fifth criteria. The defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence his eligibility for the safety No. 03-3934 7 valve. See United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095, 1101 (7th Cir. 1996). We review the district court’s interpretation of the safety valve provision under the statute and the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings concerning a defendant’s eligibility for the safety valve for clear error. See id. at 1099. As we noted earlier, the Government opposed Mr. Montes’ safety valve statement as an attempt to minimize his role in the drug offense by separating himself from the cocaine in the bag, by denying knowledge of his co-defendant Barrera’s drug activity and by claiming that he did not know why his roommate Madrigal had shown him how to use the Grand Prix’s traps. The district court concluded that Mr. Montes had failed to prove that he had provided truthful information to the Government. In particular, the court found his denial of the bag’s exchange to “def[y] common sense,” Sent. Tr. at 5, and, consequently, questioned the sincerity of the other safety valve statements challenged by the Government. Mr. Montes contends that his safety valve eligibility should not hinge on the fact that his statements contradicted the officers’ representations that Barrera handed him the bag because: (1) whether he actually or constructively possessed the bag makes no difference for purposes of legal 1 guilt; and (2) the safety valve provision does not require that he agree with the officers’ version of how the arrest took place. B. Scope of the Defendant’s Disclosure Obligation To address Mr. Montes’ claim, we must understand the breadth of subsection (a)(5)’s requirement that the defendant disclose “all information” he has about “the offense or 1 See United States v. Garrett, 903 F.2d 1105, 1110 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that constructive possession suffices). 8 No. 03-3934 offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). First, the application notes to § 5C1.2 define “offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan” to mean “the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5), cmt. n.3. Section 1B1.3, in turn, defines “relevant conduct” for sentencing purposes to include (1) (A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted . . . by the defendant; and (B) in the case of a joint criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise under- taken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all rea- sonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or re- sponsibility for that offense[.] 2 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). The application notes to § 1B1.3 elaborate on when offenses form a “common scheme or plan” and when offenses are part of “the same course of conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. n.9. Offenses form a “common scheme or plan” if they are “substantially connected to each other by at least one common factor, such as common victims, common accomplices, common purpose or similar modus operandi.” Id. at cmt. n.9(A). Those offenses not connected sufficiently to constitute a “common scheme or plan” may 2 See also United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375, 378 (10th Cir. 1995) (interpreting the scope of § 3553(f) and § 5C1.2). No. 03-3934 9 nonetheless be part of the “same course of conduct” if they are “sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses.” Id. at cmt. n.9(B). Despite Mr. Montes’ claim that his candor regarding the events of his arrest is irrelevant because he admitted enough facts to render him culpable, the safety valve does not so restrict the type of information that a defendant must provide. See Arrington, 73 F.3d at 149 (stating that § 3553(f) requires a defendant to “disclose ‘all information’ concerning the course of conduct—not simply the facts that form the basis for the criminal charge”). We have considered, at least implicitly, a similar question in United States v. Ponce, 358 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2004). In Ponce, we affirmed the district court’s refusal to apply the safety valve for the defendant who had admitted to arranging an interstate shipment of drugs and numerous related facts, but disputed the representations of undercover federal agents (whom the court credited) that he was present at the drug pick-up. Id. 3 at 468-69. 3 See also United States v. Thompson, 106 F.3d 794, 801 (7th Cir. 1997) (denying safety valve relief when defendants “continued to cling to a false version of events and dispute their own culpability”); accord United States v. Reynoso, 239 F.3d 143, 145 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of safety valve for defendant who acknowledged distributing crack cocaine but denied having served as a drug courier or deliverer based on her unsupportable story that she had stolen the drugs); United States v. White, 119 F.3d 70, 74 (1st Cir. 1997) (upholding the district court’s determination that defendant was untruthful in her attempt to minimize her role in a drug conspiracy); United States v. Gambino, 106 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming denial of safety valve relief where defendant made “incredible” claims about his role in the (continued...) 10 No. 03-3934 Moreover, the safety valve provision demands “all information” that the defendant has concerning the offense. This plainly broad language suggests that “any and all information that the defendant possesses concerning the offense must be provided to the Government.” United States v. Thompson, 81 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that defendant was required to reveal all the information he had regarding the offense, including the name of his source); see also United States v. Alvarado, 326 F.3d 857, 862 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming district court’s denial of safety valve where defendant admitted that he had received a shipment of drugs from his sister but had not disclosed his sister’s contact information); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 143 (7th Cir. 1995) (affirming denial of safety valve where defendant had “produced no information concerning the offense, including the 4 identities of drug suppliers or buyers”). As applied to Mr. 3 (...continued) drug offense); United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding no error in denial of safety valve where defendant had not provided the name of his supplier and had asserted that he possessed a lesser drug quantity than asserted by the Government and credited by the court even though the difference in quantity was not relevant to culpability or level of penalty). 4 Other courts similarly have read the safety valve disclosure requirement broadly. See United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir. 1996) (finding that “a defendant must truthfully provide all information he has concerning the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct” (citing United States v. Long, 77 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 1996))); Acostas-Olivas, 71 F.3d at 377 (accepting the argument that defendant must “tell the government all he knows about the offense of conviction and the relevant conduct, including the identities and participation of others”); United States v. Buffington, 879 F. Supp. 1220, 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (finding that defendant must (continued...) No. 03-3934 11 Montes then, the safety valve provision required at a minimum that he be truthful about the details of his own involvement in the cocaine transaction and about any other activities related to the course of conduct or plan. C. The Truthfulness of Mr. Montes’ Safety Valve Statement With our determination that § 5C1.2 covers Mr. Montes’ statements challenged by the Government, we turn to the district court’s factual finding that Mr. Montes did not truthfully provide all the relevant information and evidence he had to the Government. Mr. Montes suggests that the district court refused to apply the safety valve provision simply because he had disagreed with the Government. However, the record demonstrates that the district court conducted its own fact finding regarding the events leading to Mr. Montes’ arrest, including the officers’ direct and cross-examination testimony at an earlier suppression hearing and the parties’ safety valve arguments at the sentencing hearing. See Sent. Tr. at 5-7 (determining that Mr. Montes’ statement went against “common sense,” the testimony of officers credited by the court and the court’s finding that it was the officers’ arrival that caused the bag to be tossed onto the garage floor). The district court was entitled to credit the officers’ testimony that Barrera handed the bag to Mr. Montes. See United States v. Thornton, 197 F.3d 241, 247 (7th Cir. 1999) (“In a swearing contest, the trial judge’s choice of whom to believe will not be rejected unless the judge credited exceedingly im- 4 (...continued) disclose information “relevant to his own course of conduct and his immediate chain of distribution”). 12 No. 03-3934 5 probable testimony.”). Moreover, Mr. Montes’ lack of candor was an appropriate fact for the court to consider in determining eligibility under the safety valve provision. See Ponce, 358 F.3d at 468-69. And, finally, Mr. Montes’ bare assertion that he was truthful and that the Government was not, see Appellant’s Reply Br. at 5, does not satisfy his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he provided a full and honest disclosure. See Ramirez, 94 F.3d at 1101 (concluding that “the language and purpose of the safety valve provision require that the defendant, not the government,” prove his entitlement to the safety valve, “which includes proof of complete and honest disclosure”); United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding insufficient the defendant’s bare assertion that she had provided all relevant information). In sum, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Mr. Montes had not provided completely truthful information and, thus, did not qualify for relief from the statutory minimum sentence under § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.