Opinion ID: 2650628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gunter

Text: Gunter instructs district courts to make an initial calculation according to the sentencing guidelines, rule on formal motions for departure, and exercise their discretion in applying U.S.S.G. § 3553(a)’s mitigating factors. Gunter, 462 F.3d at 247. Without citing any further case law, Fluker’s counsel summarily concluded that it “in light of all controlling law [Fluker] is not eligible for the safety valve” and therefore retains no meritorious appeal. (Appellant’s Br. at 8) Counsel has not sufficiently explained why this issue is frivolous; however, an independent inquiry, as required by Coleman, 575 F.3d at 319, establishes that his conclusion is correct. This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court for procedural and substantive reasonableness and will only reverse a sentence if its imposition constitutes an abuse of discretion. United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2010). The “safety valve” provision of the guidelines permits a district court to sentence a defendant below the statutory minimum, but within the applicable sentencing guidelines range. This section requires that the District Court find, in relevant part: (1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines . . . [and that] (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 . . . 6 U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1), (a)(5). The guidelines define “offense” broadly to include the “offense of the conviction and all relevant conduct.” Id. at § 5C1.2 cmt. n. 3. Sentences for misdemeanor and petty offenses are calculated under the guidelines. Id. at § 4A1.2(c). Whether the facts support denial of safety-valve relief is a question of law subject to plenary review. United States v. Wilson, 106 F.3d 1140, 1142–43 (3d Cir. 1997). The District Court calculated a criminal history within category II by refusing to discount more than one of Fluker’s prior convictions and, based upon that determination, applied the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months. Based upon an independent review of the record, we find that the District Court correctly concluded that Fluker fell within a criminal history category of II. Because the District Court applied the statutory minimum sentence, the only discretion it exercised was in determining which past offenses would count toward Fluker’s criminal history. The District Court correctly awarded two criminal history points for the convictions of credit card theft and wandering in pursuit of narcotics. The District Court omitted the supermarket theft, which could have been an additional criminal history point under the guidelines calculation. The District Court also expressed its belief that Fluker was not fully honest with the government during pleading. This finding would have disqualified Fluker for the safety-valve even if the District Court had determined a criminal history within category I. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Therefore, after an independent review, we find that the District Court satisfied the requirements of Gunter. 7