Opinion ID: 203966
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Factual claims

Text: Padilla argues that the district court committed clear error in finding that his safety-valve proffer had not been truthful. He makes several discrete challenges.
Padilla argues that the district court clearly erred in concluding that he had changed his account of the offense. We disagree. Even assuming, arguendo, that the two interviews differed in purpose, as Padilla argues, that difference cannot account for the material alterations Padilla made to his story on retelling. According to Padilla's initial account, he stole the bag containing the contraband when he was visiting a friend [and] observed a man hiding a gym bag in the trunk of a vehicle. He stole it thinking that maybe it was full of cash. After the Probation Officer expressed concern that Padilla had not provided her with complete, accurate and truthful information, Padilla told a different story. He stated that he knew the owners of the bag, that they owed him $5,000, and that they had failed to pay him -19- back. During his safety-valve interview, he also stated that he had previously purchased drugs from the owners of the bag and that he expected the bag to contain drugs when he stole it. Even if the rough outlines of the two stories are consistent, the details and their implications differ markedly, and it cannot be clear error for a sentencing court to take note of such differences and find in those differences a lack of truthfulness.
Padilla argues that the sentencing court committed clear error by crediting Agent Figueroa's affidavit. Again, we disagree. To be sure, Padilla has long insisted that Agent Figueroa falsified his affidavit. On the basis of this allegation and the required preliminary showing, Padilla obtained a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to determine the validity of the February 3, 2006 search warrant, which was based on the affidavit. In her Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge who presided over the Franks hearing identified several reasons to question the veracity of Agent Figueroa's affidavit. Yet the magistrate judge also credited Agent Figueroa's testimony during the hearing, noting that he was forthright in demeanor and that some evidence . . . corroborated Figueroa's version of events. She ultimately upheld the validity of the search warrant, and submitted Proposed Findings of Fact based on Agent's Figueroa's testimony. In light of this outcome and the substance of the magistrate judge's report, we -20- cannot conclude that the district court committed clear error in giving the affidavit the weight that it did. See Matos, 328 F.3d at 40-41 ([W]hen more than one sensible interpretation . . . can supportably be drawn, a sentencing court's decision to credit one alternative and reject another cannot be deemed clearly erroneous.). Taking the measure of a sworn statement in view of its attempted impeachment is typical fact-finding, and the record simply does not compel a strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has been made. See Bermúdez, 407 F.3d at 542 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Lastly, Padilla argues that the sentencing court committed clear error by determining that the bag seized from his car during the February 3, 2006 search was the same bag Agent Figueroa observed Padilla using to carry a rifle on January 24, 2006. It is true that the bag described in Agent Figueroa's affidavit was blue and grey, while the bag discovered in the search of Padilla's automobile is described as being simply blue. However, the colors and features of the bags are not so dissimilar that it amounts to clear error to conclude that they were the same. The court might have discounted Agent Figueroa's testimony that the bag observed on January 24 was blue and grey, and not entirely blue, on the basis of his line of sight -- a matter thoroughly discussed during the Franks hearing. Agent Figueroa himself -21- testified that the bags were similar, although he was unsure whether they were the same. In light of the descriptions of the bags, the court's determination that they were the same was not clear error.
As the record reveals, the story Padilla told at his safety-valve debriefing differed in material respects from Agent Figueroa's affidavit. Padilla denied ever possessing a weapon, while Agent Figueroa stated that he observed Padilla with three weapons. Moreover, Padilla altered his own account of how he acquired the bag of drugs and ammunition seized from his car during the February 3, 2006 search. There were no clear errors in the district court's specific factual findings, as set forth in its order rejecting Padilla's eligibility for the safety valve. District courts may reject safety-valve proffers based on a reasoned assessment of the defendant's credibility in light of the facts on record. Marquez, 280 F.3d at 24. Such was the case here. Affirmed. -22-