Opinion ID: 68289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a melia g il

Text: Amelia adopts by reference Miriam’s argument that the district court 8 unfairly impeded her defense by making various procedural errors, including erroneous rulings under Brady and the Jencks Act. See F ED. R. A PP. P. 28(i) (allowing an appellant to adopt by reference a portion of another party’s brief). Since Miriam fails to establish that the district court committed any Brady or Jencks Act errors that would require a remand, so does Amelia.
Amelia further argues that the district court clearly erred by denying her safety-valve relief based on Castellanos’s testimony. We disagree. The district court credited some portions of Castellanos’s testimony and discreded others. The court’s credibility determinations were within its discretion as a factfinder. United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002). The district court’s finding that Amelia’s safety-valve statements were inadequate is supported by the record. The court considered three specific examples. First, the court determined that Amelia was involved in the operation by 2002 or 2003 and that her statement was incorrect to the extent she asserted that, before 2005, she was only generally aware of Feliciano Castillo’s and Miriam’s activities. The court’s factual finding regarding the date of Amelia’s involvement was not clearly erroneous given Castellanos’s testimony that, on several occasions in 2002 or 2003, Amelia cut marijuana plants and was present during conversations 9 about the business. Second, the court determined that Amelia’s statement was incorrect regarding a conversation she had with Castellanos and Castillo about marijuana activities. Castellanos testified that the conversation occurred in 2003, but Amelia denied participating in it. Again, given Castellanos’s testimony, the court’s finding that Amelia was not truthful on this point was not clearly erroneous. Third, the court determined that Amelia’s statement was inadequate because her direct testimony failed to state that Castellanos set up lights for Castillo. Amelia’s testimony regarding Castellanos’s activities with Castillo was internally inconsistent: on cross-examination, she testified that Castellano did “nothing” with Castillo; on rebuttal, she testified that Castellano set up the electrical board, and that Castillo shared this plan with her beforehand; and on cross-examination for her rebuttal, she testified that she did not know that Castellanos set up the board until after the fact. To be sure, the district court was mistaken when it stated that Amelia was asked on direct what did Castellanos do when he came over. The court correctly noted, however, that Amelia did not discuss Castellanos’s involvement on direct examination at all. Given the internal inconsistencies in her testimony regarding Castellanos’s involvement, and considering the court’s warning that her testimony 10 at sentencing should constitute the entirety of her safety-valve statement, the record supports the court’s finding that her statement was inadequate on this point. Finally, although Amelia asserts that the court erroneously found that she recruited Castellanos, her assertion is not supported by the record, as the court found that Miriam brought Castellanos to the houses. Thus, the record supports the district court’s determination that Amelia’s safety-valve statement did not meet the requirements of the “tell-all” provision. We affirm the court’s denial of safetyvalve relief.