Opinion ID: 703903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Downward Departure under U.S.S.G. Sec. 5C1.2

Text: 10 Edwards argues that he meets the requirements for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. Sec. 5C1.2 and that the district court failed to fully consider his eligibility. Edwards argues that the reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1 suggests that he qualifies for a downward departure. 11 U.S.S.G. Sec. 5C1.2 is a safety valve provision which allows qualified defendants to escape the applicable statutory minimum sentence. 8 U.S.S.G. Sec. 5C1.2 allows this relief only if the defendant meets five criteria: 12 (1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; 13 (2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense; 14 (3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person; 15 (4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848; and 16 (5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement. 17 In this case, the government opposed the application of Sec. 5C1.2 because it argued that, by alleging that there were only 10 ounces of methamphetamine present, Edwards failed truthfully to provide the government with all information and that, therefore, Edwards failed to meet the fifth criteria. Edwards responds by arguing that his challenge of the amount of drugs attributed to him by the PSI does not preclude application of Sec. 5C1.2, especially in the light of the initial mistake in the PSI. 18 A sentencing court's refusal to apply Sec. 5C1.2 is a factual finding, which we review for clear error. 9 We agree with Edwards that a mere challenge to factual findings at sentencing does not automatically exclude application of Sec. 5C1.2. In this case, however, more occurred at sentencing which is relevant to the application of this section. Edwards offered testimony which directly contradicted information gathered by the government. The district court did not credit Edwards's testimony, as evidenced by his finding that at least 452 grams of methamphetamine were involved. Furthermore, the PSI indicates that Edwards told agents at the time of his arrest that he had received only a half pound of methamphetamine. 10 Later, the defendant alleged that he received only two ounces of methamphetamine. 11 In these circumstances, the district court could have concluded that Edwards did not, as alleged by the government, truthfully provide all relevant information. We see no clear error in this conclusion and we, therefore, affirm the district court's decision on this issue. 19