Opinion ID: 201233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Drug Quantity for Sentencing and Safety Valve Purposes

Text: 12 Morgan characterizes the court's finding between 80 to 100 kilograms attributable to his role in the conspiracy as judicial confirmation that he did not participate in the full 131.59 kilo conspiracy and as proof of his truthfulness for purposes of applying the safety valve and substantial assistance reductions to his sentence. We deal with each contention in turn.
13 As oft-written, [w]e review the sentencing court's factual findings, which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, for clear error. United States v. Lopez, 299 F.3d 84, 87 (1st Cir.2002), citing United States v. Damon, 127 F.3d 139, 141 (1st Cir.1997). That preponderance, United States v. Marks, 365 F.3d 101, 105 (1st Cir.2004), simply requires the government to present enough information, free from the strictures of the rules of evidence which do not apply to sentencing hearings, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, Lopez, 299 F.3d at 89; Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3), to make it more likely than not that the fact to be proved is true. We then will treat[ ] with deference the district court's determination which we will reverse only if, after reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Lopez, 299 F.3d at 87 (citation omitted). 14 Despite Morgan's persistently conflating the inquiries on drug weight and the vindication of his truthfulness in testifying about his involvement in the conspiracy, we must untangle the two issues. While the testimony at the sentencing hearing established at most approximately 135 pounds to be attributed to Morgan's participation in the conspiracy, the presentence report more fully documented additional quantities from recipients, particularly Scharn and Stanbury, whom, the government conceded, it perhaps should have been more diligent in calling to testify to get over 100 kilos. 3 Nevertheless, the district court also had benefit of the background facts from the presentence report, which we, too, utilize in our review for clear error. See id. at 86, citing United States v. Brady, 168 F.3d 574, 576 (1st Cir.1999). The pandect on sentencing and the standard of review we must follow require no more. Assessing the credibility of the witnesses against the background facts in the presentence report, the district court did not err in concluding Morgan was responsible for 80 to 100 kilograms of marijuana involved in the conspiracy, resulting in a base offense level of 24.
15 On the battleground of the fifth element of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), 4 United States v. Matos, 328 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir.2003), Morgan contends the district court failed to make its own independent determination of whether he met the only contested element of the safety valve provision, that he provide all information and evidence of the offense. That void in the court's determination cannot be filled with the government's generally subjective belief of his lack of candor, Morgan asserts. 16 We disagree. Although on its face the court's summary statement denying safety valve relief appears to provide scant satisfaction of the specific factual findings of which our precedent speaks, 5 Matos, 328 F.3d at 40, the full record of the sentencing hearing surely amplifies the conclusion. During several interchanges, the court commented on Morgan's lack of candor in downplaying his role in the conspiracy and in offering all of the information the government sought. Asking its own questions and listening to the witnesses' testimony as well as counsels' arguments involving credibility, the court then made the  independent determination U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 requires. United States v. White, 119 F.3d 70, 73 (1st Cir.1997). 17 We review de novo interpretations of the safety valve provision under § 3553(f) and the guideline, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, while [o]n the other hand, we review for clear error the factual findings relating to whether a defendant has qualified for the `safety valve' provisions. Id. at 73 n. 6. Under this standard, we cannot say the court erred in denying relief. 18 Indeed, the court's dissatisfaction with Morgan's candor surfaced again when it rejected Morgan's argument under § 5K1.1, stating that Morgan's truthfulness has been an issue throughout this hearing. Concluding no plea agreement was ever struck, the court properly gave effect to the government's decision not to request a downward departure for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Although Morgan here insists the government's plea agreement became effective upon the court's concluding he did not participate in the total amount of marijuana involved in the conspiracy, his argument is fatuous. Assuming we have jurisdiction to entertain the question — a matter on which we take no view — the district court did not err in refusing to depart under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. 19