Opinion ID: 4525510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remaining Guidelines Issues

Text: Reyna challenges district court rulings that imposed a two-level aggravating role enhancement, denied safety valve relief, and declined to give Reyna an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. These are fact findings we review for -4- clear error. See Moralez, 808 F.3d at 367 (aggravating role); United States v. Soto, 448 F.3d 993, 995 (8th Cir. 2006) (safety valve proffer); United States v. Greger, 339 F.3d 666, 672 (8th Cir. 2003) (acceptance of responsibility). A. Aggravating Role. The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for Reyna’s role as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” of a criminal conspiracy. See USSG § 3B1.1(c). These terms are interpreted broadly. See United States v. Molina-Perez, 595 F.3d 854, 862 (8th Cir. 2010). The enhancement is appropriate even if the defendant only supervised or managed one other participant in the conspiracy. United States v. Gamboa, 701 F.3d 265, 267 (8th Cir. 2012). Reyna argues the evidence fails to show that he exercised control and authority over others; at most, the evidence shows that he was a contact person. Paragraph 8 of the PSR stated Nunez collected a $3,950 drug debt from the CI “on behalf of Reyna Rodriguez.” The district court correctly noted that “paragraph 8 of the presentence report all by itself would support an aggravating role adjustment here.” Additionally, paragraph 14 of the PSR stated that on another day, Reyna sent Nunez to deliver 61 grams of methamphetamine to the CI, driving a vehicle registered to Reyna. Beyond these paragraphs of the PSR, to which Reyna did not object, Special Agent Smith and Nunez testified that Reyna directed Nunez to deliver drugs and collect money, testimony corroborated by surveillance and other evidence. The district court did not clearly err in assessing an aggravating role enhancement. B. Safety Valve. Reyna had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he met the five requirements enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and USSG § 5C1.2(a) to qualify for a safety valve sentencing reduction. Soto, 448 F.3d at 995. The district court first ruled that Reyna was ineligible for safety valve relief because he played an aggravating role in the conspiracy. See § 3553(f)(4). As we have upheld the aggravating role enhancement, the denial of safety valve relief must likewise be upheld. In addition, the district court found, based on Special Agent -5- Smith’s credible testimony, that Reyna did not qualify for safety valve relief because he was not fully truthful during his safety valve proffer interview. See § 3553(f)(5). Smith testified that Reyna falsely denied directing Nunez or anyone else to deliver methamphetamine, said he only sold Jack Carr an ounce or two of methamphetamine, and lied about the source of the cash found in his safe, how his wife came to have serialized buy money in her purse, and the quantities of methamphetamine he sold. This finding was not clearly erroneous. Reyna was properly denied a safety valve reduction. C. Acceptance of Responsibility. The PSR recommended that Reyna receive a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he “assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of [his] misconduct by timely notifying authorities of the intention to enter a guilty plea.” See USSG § 3E1.1. However, after summarizing the evidence at the end of the sentencing hearing, the district court denied the reduction, explaining: This is a defendant flat-out denying things that are, in my view, quite obviously true, obviously well-corroborated, and in my view, that is frivolously contesting and falsely denying the offense conduct and the relevant conduct here. Acceptance of responsibility is the defendant’s burden he has to carry forward showing that he is entitled to it, and I find here that he has not met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence. “A defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, but the fact that a defendant’s challenge is unsuccessful does not necessarily establish that it was either a false denial or frivolous.” USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(A)). Here, the district court expressly found that Reyna’s contesting -6- of the drug quantity attributable to him was frivolous, involving false denials of conduct clearly established by the evidence. On appeal, Reyna argues that he merely questioned the credibility of witnesses and subjected their testimony to cross-examination, which is not a frivolous endeavor. However, Reyna did not deny the factual recitals in the PSR’s drug quantity paragraphs. Rather, he asserted the transactions were not reasonably foreseeable to him, in the face of substantial, corroborated, and undisputed testimony to the contrary. Indeed, when asked by the district court to identify the foreseeable transactions on which Reyna was basing his contention for a 500 gram finding, defense counsel had no answer. It is not clear error for a district court to deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility when the defendant denies large amounts of relevant conduct that the district court finds to be well-proven. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 539 F.3d 895, 898 (8th Cir. 2008). To receive the reduction, “the defendant must accept responsibility for all of the conduct that is part of his conviction.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 971 (8th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, United States v. White, 863 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2017) (en banc). “Because the sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review.” United States v. Davis, 875 F.3d 869, 875 (8th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2585 (2018) (cleaned up). The district court did not clearly err in denying Reyna an acceptance of responsibility reduction. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -7-