Opinion ID: 3039864
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: application of the statutory

Text: SAFETY VALVE To ensure that the Federal Sentencing Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3673 (West 2000 & Supp. 2005); 28 U.S.C. §§ 991998 (West 1993 & Supp. 2005), did not violate the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court in Booker excised the portion of the Act that made the Sentencing Guidelines mandatory — 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) — thus “mak[ing] the Guidelines effectively advisory.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 245. The Court held that with § 3553(b)(1) and one other provision regarding appellate review of mandatorily-imposed sentences — 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) — excised, the Federal Sentencing Act “requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, but it permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 24546 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2004)). [1] The safety valve statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), was enacted by Congress in 1994 to “increase[ ] the consistency, rationality, and . . . effectiveness of federal sentencing laws.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-460, summary & purpose (1994). The 19314 UNITED STATES v. CARDENAS-JUAREZ intent was to “increase the effectiveness of existing controlled substance mandatory minimums by ensuring that these penalties are directly targeted toward relatively more serious conduct.” Id. At the first sentencing hearing in Cardenas-Juarez’s case, the district court expressed concern that the language of the statutory safety valve made imposing a sentence within the Guidelines obligatory, and found that requirement inconsistent with the language of Booker. The specific language of the safety valve statute that the district court quoted was: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of [certain] offense[s] . . . , the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 . . . without regard to any statutory minimum . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (West 2000) (emphasis added). Ultimately, counsel for both parties and the district court agreed that, in light of Booker, § 3553(f) could only be read as advisory, not mandatory.1 Two district courts have published opinions on this subject. See United States v. Cherry, 366 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D. Va. 2005); United States v. Duran, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (D. Utah 2005).2 The Duran court determined that the safety valve stat- 1 In his brief before this court, Cardenas-Juarez clarifies that he views the safety valve statute as mandatory, but he understands that it invokes an advisory guideline scheme. 2 Some circuit courts have addressed the question whether the statutory safety valve is advisory after Booker, but they have done so only in the context of defendants who argued for discretionary application of the safety valve where one or more of the safety valve eligibility requirements — i.e., no more than one criminal history point, no firearm involvement, cooperation with the government, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) — had not been satisfied. See United States v. McKoy, 452 F.3d 234, 239-40 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1299-1300 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Barrero, 425 F.3d 154, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Payton, 405 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005). Those courts all concluded the safety valve eligibility requirements retain their UNITED STATES v. CARDENAS-JUAREZ 19315 ute is mandatory in that it requires a district court to consider the Guidelines once all the provisions of the safety valve statute are satisfied. Duran, 383 F. Supp. 2d at 1348. Nevertheless, the Duran court recognized that the Guidelines remain advisory under Booker so that the district court is required to consider them, but is not required to impose a sentence squarely within a Guidelines range. Id. The court in Duran based its holding on an interpretation of the term “pursuant to.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (stating that “the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to the guidelines”) (emphasis added). The court concluded that “[s]o long as the court consults the Guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence, any resulting sentence is ‘pursuant to’ the Guidelines.” Duran, 383 F. Supp. 2d at 1347. The court further based its holding on the rule of statutory construction favoring a reading of the statute that allows it to survive constitutional scrutiny. Id. at 1347-48. “Rather than read the safety valve provision as containing a defect, it is far better to read the provision as simply incorporating advisory Guidelines.” Id. at 1347. Following the constitutional-avoidance argument in Duran, as well as the reasoning in an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion, see United States v. Leslie, 46 Fed. Appx. 699, 700 (4th Cir. 2002), the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that district courts must apply the safety valve statute to determine a purely advisory Sentencing Guideline range that should be considered along with other factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cherry, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 365-76 & n.2. mandatory nature even after Booker. McKoy, 452 F.3d at 239-40; Brehm, 442 F.3d at 1292; Barrero, 425 F.3d at 157-58; Payton, 405 F.3d at 1173. These holdings do not directly answer the question presently before this court — whether the statutory safety valve’s requirement that a sentence be imposed pursuant to the Guidelines when all of its eligibility criteria are satisfied violates the principles articulated in Booker. 19316 UNITED STATES v. CARDENAS-JUAREZ [2] Our court has not previously considered the specific question whether, after Booker, the safety valve statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), is a mandatory or an advisory provision of the Federal Sentencing Act. We have, however, held that “Booker does not bear on mandatory minimums,” United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005), and that there is no need for a jury to find facts beyond a reasonable doubt to allow a decreased — as opposed to an increased — sentence when applying the safety valve statute, because in such a situation the Sixth Amendment is not implicated. See United States v. Labrada-Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252, 1263 (9th Cir. 2005). [3] We now hold that the safety valve statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), survives Booker to require district courts to impose sentences pursuant to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. This is consistent with congressional intent both to provide relief for less serious offenders and to reduce sentencing disparity. When the statutory safety valve requirements of § 3553(f) are met, “district courts still ‘must consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing,’ even though they now have the discretion to impose nonGuidelines sentences.” United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1278 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Booker, 543 U.S. at 264).