Opinion ID: 2977900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Adams’s sentencing

Text: The sentencing hearing for Mr. Adams was held in January 2007. Mr. Adams’s counsel argued for a safety-valve sentence reduction. The district court found that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Mr. Adams had obstructed—and continued to obstruct—justice, in violation of his plea agreement, subjecting him to a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Citing the same evidence, the court found that Adams could not meet the requirements for application of the safetyvalve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The court also found that Mr. Adams had not accepted -7- USA v. Adams Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725 responsibility for his actions within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because he had not been truthful about the disposition of the marijuana left in his possession. Based on these findings, the Probation Office calculated that Mr. Adams had a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months of imprisonment. The district court then invited the parties to speak regarding an appropriate sentence. Counsel for Mr. Adams argued that, despite the court’s finding an obstruction of justice, Mr. Adams had accepted responsibility for his actions and should thus receive no more than the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Adams then testified, claiming that he had ultimately provided truthful and complete information to the court about his involvement with the marijuana and its proceeds. But he admitted on cross-examination that he had lied during six separate interviews, had also lied to the probation officer who prepared the Presentence Report, and had even lied to his own attorneys until the contents of his jailhouse calls were revealed. The district court sentenced Mr. Adams to 151 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. Explaining its decision, the court stated: The defendant admitted to obstructing justice in this case and, in the court’s opinion, is continuing to obstruct justice by not informing the court of all the information he has relevant to the whereabouts of the missing marijuana and its proceeds. Simply stated, Mr. Adams, I don’t believe you. The court acknowledges that the defendant has worked lawfully his entire life until he was recruited into this conspiracy and has no prior criminal history. Defendant’s actions subsequent to signing his Plea Agreement cost him safety valve eligibility as well as a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a substantial increase in the length of defendant’s sentence. -8- USA v. Adams Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725 Thus, the court believes that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is sufficient but not greater than necessary to punish the defendant for his actions . . . .