Opinion ID: 808733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Safety-Valve Relief

Text: Lastly, Fuenmayor-Arevalo argues that the district court erred in ruling that he was ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) because he was convicted for maritime drug law offenses under 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503 and 70506 that are not specified in the safety-valve statute.6 However, Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s argument is foreclosed by our recent precedent in United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz, 679 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2012). In Pertuz-Pertuz—which involved an appeal by one of Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s codefendants convicted of the same maritime drug law offenses as Fuenmayor-Arevalo—we held that “the plain text of the statutes shows that [maritime drug law] convictions under Title 46 of the U.S. Code . . . entitle a defendant to no safety-valve sentencing relief.” Id. at 1329. 6 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the sentencing court may sentence a defendant convicted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 844, 846, 960, or 963 without regard to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence if: (1) the defendant does not have more than one criminal history point, (2) the defendant did not use violence, threaten violence, or possess a dangerous weapon in connection with the offense, (3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person, (4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, and (5) the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense. 23 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 24 of 24 Accordingly, we affirm Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED. 24