Court Opinion

ID: 9400208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 18:00:35.827727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.011746
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

No. 22-1473

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                    JESUS ARLEY MUNERA-GOMEZ,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Gelpí, Lynch, and Howard,
                         Circuit Judges.

     David Eric Burdette, with whom Murat Erkan and Erkan &
Associates were on brief, for appellant.
     Alexia R. De Vincentis, Assistant United States Attorney,
with whom Rachael S. Rollins, United States Attorney, was on brief,
for appellee.

                           June 7, 2023
            GELPÍ, Circuit Judge.    Defendant-Appellant Jesus Arley

Munera-Gomez ("Munera") appeals his conviction and subsequent

sentence for attempting to possess with intent to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Specifically, Munera contends that the district court erred by

declining to order the government to provide use immunity to a

defense witness, resulting in a violation of Munera's due process

rights; precluding Munera's girlfriend from testifying about the

undue pressure placed on Munera by a confidential source, thus

undermining his entrapment defense; refusing to apply safety valve

relief at sentencing, despite Munera satisfying the eligibility

criteria;   and   impermissibly   considering   Munera's   immigration

status at sentencing.    Finding his first three challenges lacking

and his final argument waived, we affirm.

                            I. Background

            We begin by laying out the basic facts and procedural

history of the case, with elaboration as needed in our analysis of

the legal issues.

                              A. Facts

            In August 2019, a confidential source ("CS") for the

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") approached Munera in

a Colombian billiards bar in East Boston after hearing someone

                                  - 2 -
refer to him as "Pikachu."1      CS testified that he recognized the

nickname as belonging to someone who had supplied cocaine to his

former business partners, Fabio and Girado Quijano.                 After CS

introduced   himself   to   Munera,   the   two   interacted   on    several

occasions at the billiards bar -- none of these conversations were

recorded.     During one of these interactions, CS broached the

subject of doing a drug transaction with Munera, and the two agreed

to meet away from the bar to discuss the details.

            The first recorded meeting occurred on October 23, 2019,

where CS, at the DEA's direction, arranged to meet Munera at a

restaurant to discuss the drug transaction.          During the meeting,

Munera told his friend (who had accompanied him) that he had talked

to CS before but "didn't even know who he was."                During the

conversation, Munera acknowledged seeing the unusual round discs

of cocaine (as opposed to typical bricks) that CS had distributed

in East Boston at the beginning of 2019.      Munera also told CS that,

at that time, he was getting twenty to thirty kilograms of cocaine

from a Mexican supplier.     CS informed Munera that, if they closed

a deal, Munera would have to cover the transportation cost for the

cocaine up front, and Munera agreed, responding, "That's the way

it is.   Yes."

     1 During his testimony, Munera acknowledged going by the
nickname "Pikachu."

                                 - 3 -
            The next meeting between Munera and CS, which was also

recorded, occurred on November 7, 2019, in a cafe.              CS told Munera

that he could get a few hundred kilograms of cocaine but that he

did not want to "spread [him]self around" -- which he explained

meant   selling       kilograms       to    multiple       people,    which     is

riskier -- and inquired what Munera thought of the risk.                 Munera

responded, "I don't have a problem."               Munera explained that his

interest in the deal depended on the price because he was currently

buying cocaine at "twenty-nine and a half" -- meaning $29,500 per

kilogram.      CS    and     Munera   discussed    pricing    the    cocaine    at

twenty-eight, meaning $28,000 per kilogram, and Munera told CS to

give him eight days' notice before the cocaine arrived so that he

could have $150,000 to $250,000 ready for him.               When CS explained

that his supplier preferred to sell 100 kilograms of cocaine at a

time, Munera said, "I understand.             It's better for them.           They

can't be all over the place with twenty, ten . . . ."                  Finally,

they discussed the profits earned from selling a kilogram of

cocaine,    with    Munera    stating,     "many   times    you're   making    six

thousand, four thousand but with a lot of back and forth."

            CS and Munera next met on January 21, 2020.              During this

recorded meeting, CS told Munera that the cocaine was set to arrive

in February.       When CS asked how much Munera wanted, Munera again

reiterated that it depended on the price and stated that he was

currently getting it at "two eight," meaning $28,000 a kilogram,

                                      - 4 -
and that he got around twenty kilograms of cocaine monthly.                  CS

believed that Munera, in an attempt to get a better deal for

himself, was giving him a fake price to try and get CS to sell to

him even lower.       Munera told CS that the cocaine also had to be

good quality.       After some back and forth, CS agreed to a price of

$27,000 a kilogram.        He informed Munera that if he could front

$200,000 to cover the transportation cost of the cocaine, there

would be no rush to pay back the rest of the money.

              On   February 12,   2020,   CS    and   Munera   met   again   in

anticipation of the drug transaction set to occur the following

day.       They discussed logistics, including how much money Munera

was going to pay up front and where the transaction would occur.

Munera mentioned that he had been shorted on cocaine in the past.

During the meeting, undercover DEA agents, posing as CS's cocaine

suppliers, showed Munera fake kilogram packages of cocaine, as

well as a photo of an open kilogram package.2

              CS and Munera met the following day, February 13, 2020,

at Munera's apartment building to complete the transaction. Munera

did not want to conduct the deal on the street, so CS, wearing a

recording device, went up to his apartment to check that Munera

had the promised $200,000 in cash.             CS observed the cash, which

       CS testified that he made realistic-looking fake kilogram
       2

packages for the DEA to show Munera by wrapping wood in plastic
wrap.

                                    - 5 -
was packaged in bundles of $10,000 and $50,000, and testified at

trial that drug money is usually packaged like that.           Munera told

CS to take a photo of the cash as proof for the drug suppliers.

CS then left the apartment, without the money, and returned to the

undercover   agents.    Eventually,     CS   reentered   the    apartment

building with the undercover agents to conduct the transaction.

The agents carried in the bag containing the fake cocaine, and

Munera reassured them that "[t]he money [is] all good.                It's

there."   After the agents handed Munera the bag, he left the lobby

to bring it back to his apartment and to retrieve the $200,000.

Munera was arrested in the stairwell, still carrying the bag of

sham cocaine, and $200,000 was later recovered from his apartment.

                       B. Procedural History

           Following his arrest, a grand jury indicted Munera on

one count of attempting to possess with intent to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine.     During pretrial proceedings, the

government, at Munera's request, interviewed CS to learn more about

why he decided to approach Munera at the billiards bar.                 CS

explained that when he worked with Fabio Quijano ("Quijano") in

2016 and 2017, Quijano purchased kilograms of cocaine from a man

called "Pikachu," whom he had grown up with in Colombia.         CS stated

that he never met Pikachu in person.     After CS heard someone refer

to Munera as Pikachu in the bar, CS approached him.

                                - 6 -
           Subsequently, the government interviewed Quijano, who

was then under indictment for drug trafficking and money laundering

offenses committed between 2018 and 2020.           During his proffer,

Quijano acknowledged that he knew Munera but did not conduct drug

activity with him.       Anticipating that Quijano would assert a Fifth

Amendment privilege if called to testify, Munera requested use

immunity for Quijano.        After the government refused to provide

said immunity, Munera requested that the district court order the

government to do so.       The district court denied Munera's request

at the final pretrial conference, explaining that "there [wa]s no

evidence that the prosecution withheld immunity in an attempt to

distort the factfinding process."

           At trial, Munera admitted to the underlying offense

conduct but advanced an entrapment defense.             Munera called his

girlfriend, Estefania Holguin Builes ("Holguin"), to testify about

the pressure CS placed on Munera leading up to the transaction in

February 2020.     During her testimony, the government objected to

various responses based on her lack of personal knowledge or on

hearsay grounds.    Most of the government's objections to Holguin's

testimony were sustained.          After a four-day trial, the jury

convicted Munera on the sole count.

           At sentencing, Munera argued that he met the eligibility

criteria for safety valve relief based on his trial testimony.

The   district   court    disagreed,   finding   that   the   safety   valve

                                   - 7 -
adjustment did not apply because Munera failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that his testimony at trial was

truthful    and   because   "he   certainly   did   not   give   all   of   the

background information with respect to his participation in this

offense during the trial."          Munera received a sentence of 120

months' imprisonment.       This appeal followed.

                              II. Discussion

                              A. Use Immunity

            We begin with Munera's claim of error related to use

immunity.    Munera contends that the district court's refusal to

order the government to grant Quijano use immunity resulted in a

denial of due process and an unfair trial.           Specifically, Munera

argues that, had Quijano testified, his testimony would have

directly contradicted CS as to Munera's predisposition to engage

in   drug    trafficking -- thereby         corroborating    Munera's       own

testimony in support of his entrapment defense -- and would have

called the credibility of CS, the main government witness, into

question.

            On appeal, we review the denial of immunity de novo and

the factual findings underpinning the district court's decision

for clear error.     See United States v. Catano, 65 F.3d 219, 224,

226 (1st Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Straub, 538 F.3d

1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that "[t]he question of

                                    - 8 -
whether a district court erred by refusing to compel use immunity

is a mixed question of law and fact").

              We    have      previously    explained   that     "[t]he   power   and

discretion         to    immunize    witnesses     lies       primarily   with    the

prosecution."           United States v. Berroa, 856 F.3d 141, 159 (1st

Cir. 2017); see United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1191 (1st

Cir. 1990) (recognizing "that the power to grant witness immunity"

is   vested    in       the   executive    branch).       A   district    court   may

circumvent the government's discretionary call only in the rare

circumstance that "a prosecutor abuses [his or] her discretion by

intentionally attempting to distort the fact-finding process,"

thus violating a defendant's due process rights.                      Angiulo, 897

F.2d at 1191-92; see Berroa, 856 F.3d at 159.                  Such distortion can

occur "if the prosecutor purposefully withholds use immunity to

hide exculpatory evidence from the jury."                 Berroa, 856 F.3d at 159

(quoting United States v. Castro, 129 F.3d 226, 232 (1st Cir.

1997)).

              At the outset, we note that our case law makes clear

that where the government offers a plausible reason for denying

use immunity to a defense witness, such an assertion "adequately

deflects any insinuation that the government's handling of [the]

witness was motivated by the sole purpose of keeping exculpatory

evidence from the jury."             See Castro, 129 F.3d at 233 (crediting

"government's desire not to hinder 'state or federal charges of

                                           - 9 -
possession of controlled drugs and trafficking [that] could still

be     brought    [against      the    witness]'"          (first     alteration       in

original)).       Here, the government's stated reason for refusing to

give    Quijano    use   immunity -- avoiding             potential    obstacles        to

Quijano's prosecution on pending federal charges -- is exactly the

type of rationale that we have continuously recognized as fending

off a claim of prosecutorial misconduct.                  See Curtis v. Duval, 124

F.3d    1,   10   (1st   Cir.    1997)       ("[W]e    cannot       peer    behind    the

prosecution's plausible assertion of a legitimate interest in

keeping the way clear for a possible future prosecution [of a

witness].");      Angiulo,    897     F.2d    at    1193     (explaining      that    the

government's "desire not to hinder possible state and federal

prosecutions . . . show[s]            that    the     government's         conduct     was

motivated by something other than the sole desire to keep [the

witness]'s exculpatory testimony from the jury"); United States v.

Mackey, 117 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1997) (recognizing the

government's       interest     in    avoiding        risk    to    possible        future

prosecution of a witness as a legitimate justification for denying

use    immunity).        Notably,     Munera       does    not     contend    that    the

government acted in bad faith in denying Quijano use immunity.

Thus,    given    Munera's    concession,       the       government's       good    faith

justification for denying use immunity to Quijano would normally

end our inquiry.

                                       - 10 -
            Nevertheless,     relying     primarily   on     Ninth    Circuit

jurisprudence,3 Munera asks us to balance his interest in Quijano's

immunized     testimony   against       the   government's    interest     in

withholding immunity to decide whether a due process violation

occurred.      In   effect,   this   argument    invokes     the     so-called

"effective defense" theory, which "posits that a strong need for

exculpatory testimony can override even legitimate, good faith

objections by the prosecutor to a grant of immunity."              Mackey, 117

F.3d at 28.    We have repeatedly rejected this theory; Castro, for

example, explained that the theory "is not good law in this circuit

and [a defendant] cannot profit by it."          129 F.3d at 232 (stating

that the effective defense theory has been "interred"); accord

Curtis, 124 F.3d at 9; Mackey, 117 F.3d at 28.         To the extent the

Ninth Circuit's doctrine embraces the effective defense theory, we

reject it.

     3 Citing United States v. Westerdahl, 945 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir.
1991), Munera argues that the factfinding process may be distorted
when the government relies on immunized testimony for its case but
then refuses to grant use immunity to defense witnesses. However,
Munera fails to reconcile the Ninth Circuit's more lenient
prosecutorial misconduct standard with this circuit's existing
precedent. Compare id. at 1086 (requiring a defendant to "show
that the evidence sought from the nonimmunized witness was relevant
and that the government distorted the judicial fact-finding
process by denying immunity to the potential witness" (emphases
added)), with Angiulo, 897 F.2d at 1193 (requiring a defendant to
show that the government "intentionally distort[ed] the fact-
finding process by deliberately withholding immunity from certain
prospective defense witnesses for the purpose of keeping
exculpatory evidence from the jury" (emphases added)).

                                  - 11 -
             Without in any way undercutting our rejection of the

effective defense theory, we acknowledge that Mackey may have left

open the possibility of an exceedingly narrow "exception" to that

rejection in circumstances involving "very extreme facts."                       117

F.3d at 28.          But see Castro, 129 F.3d at 232 (categorically

rejecting the effective defense theory without any reference to a

possible exception).         That case described a hypothetical situation

in which "the prosecutor has only a trivial interest in withholding

immunity and -- to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice -- the

defendant     has    an    overwhelming    need    for     specific    exculpatory

evidence that can be secured in no way other than through the grant

of immunity."        Mackey, 117 F.3d at 28.           Munera's arguments do not

bring this case anywhere close to Mackey's hypothetical.

             First,    the government's interest in withholding use

immunity for Quijano was far from "trivial."                Id. On the contrary,

we    have   routinely     recognized     as    nontrivial     the    government's

"legitimate interest in keeping the way clear for a possible future

prosecution." Curtis, 124 F.3d at 10 (emphasis added); see Mackey,

117 F.3d at 28 (same); Castro, 129 F.3d at 233 (same); Angiulo,

897   F.2d   at     1191   (same).      Here,     Quijano     was    already    under

indictment     for    serious     offenses,      and    the   government       had    a

legitimate     interest      in   avoiding      potential     obstacles    to        his

prosecution.        Munera argues that the government's interest in

safeguarding its then-ongoing prosecution of Quijano should have

                                     - 12 -
given   way    because   Quijano      was   not    under   indictment    for   the

activities in question, which occurred in 2016 and 2017; the

prosecution of said activities would soon be barred by the statute

of limitations; the government has not made any effort to prosecute

Quijano for these alleged activities; and use immunity would not

necessarily bar prosecution based on evidence obtained independent

of his testimony.        But none of the first three points make it

implausible that a future prosecution of Quijano, which would be

hampered by immunization,          was "possible" at the time             of the

immunity decision, see Curtis, 124 F.3d at 10, and the final point

would be true in any case involving use immunity. The government's

strong interest in withholding immunity alone brings this case

outside the Mackey hypothetical, which in turn ends the matter.

              Even   going   beyond    that,      Munera   has   not   shown   "an

overwhelming need for specific exculpatory evidence that can be

secured in no way other than through the grant of immunity" and

that is necessary "to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice."

Mackey, 117 F.3d at 28.        Munera contends that he needed Quijano's

testimony to contradict and discredit CS, since the government

purportedly relied exclusively on CS's testimony to establish

Munera's predisposition to engage in drug trafficking based on his

prior work with Quijano. Munera's argument falls short for several

reasons.      His claim of "overwhelming need" is undercut by the fact

that he testified to the same exculpatory evidence that he was

                                      - 13 -
hoping to obtain through immunized testimony -- that he never sold

drugs    to   Quijano -- thus    establishing    that   the    evidence    was

available other than through a grant of immunity.               Nor did the

government rely exclusively on CS for predisposition evidence.              In

fact, the government introduced transcripts of recordings where

Munera is caught discussing, among other things, his Mexican drug

supplier, how much a kilogram of cocaine costs him, his profits

from drug sales, and other intricacies of the drug trade. Although

Munera contends that CS coached him about the drug trade during

their unrecorded meetings, he fails to adequately explain why he

would    then   pretend   to    be   an   experienced   drug   dealer     when

interacting with CS given that CS allegedly knew that he was not.4

These recordings evidenced Munera's predisposition to engage in

drug trafficking and bolstered CS's credibility with respect to

his testimony about his dealings with Munera. Given this evidence,

Munera cannot show an "overwhelming need" for Quijano's immunized

testimony to avoid "a complete miscarriage of justice."            Id.

                     B. Limiting Holguin's Testimony

              Munera next contends that the district court erred when

it precluded Holguin from testifying about the pressure CS placed

     4 When pressed at oral argument, Munera's counsel explained
that Munera held himself out as an experienced drug dealer as a
negotiation tactic to maximize his profits. We cannot square this
desire to maximize profits with his claim that Munera lacked a
predisposition to engage in drug trafficking.

                                     - 14 -
on Munera, thus undermining his entrapment defense.                          He claims

that Holguin was wrongfully prevented from testifying about what

he told her CS said about his living conditions; the effect of

CS's struggles on him; and his emotional state when discussing

CS's    struggles -- despite          his    proffer     that      the    evidence   was

offered for his state of mind rather than the truth.

               We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for

abuse of discretion.             See United States v. Concepcion-Guliam, 62

F.4th 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2023).              "[W]hen judicial action is taken in

a discretionary matter, such action cannot be set aside by a

reviewing court unless it has a definite and firm conviction that

the    court    below   committed      a    clear     error   of    judgment    in   the

conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors."

United States v. Kilmartin, 944 F.3d 315, 335 (1st Cir. 2019)

(quoting Schubert v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S., 148 F.3d 25, 30

(1st Cir. 1998)).       Further, "[w]e will not reverse if it is highly

probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict." United

States v. Ocasio-Ruiz, 779 F.3d 43, 47 (1st Cir. 2015).

               We   first   dispatch       Munera's     claim      that   Holguin    was

prevented from testifying about his emotional state and demeanor.

Contrary to his assertion, Holguin was correctly permitted to

testify    about      her   observations         of    Munera's     demeanor.        See

Concepcion-Guliam,          62     F.4th    at    32    (permitting        detective's

testimony about his observations).               The district court even said,

                                       - 15 -
"She can testify as to his demeanor."               For example, the district

court allowed the following from Holguin:

            •    "[Munera's] attitude, the way he felt, was,
                 oh, it hurts me a lot to see [CS] when he
                 tells me that, when I hear this."

            •    "I noticed [Munera] to be very stressed. I
                 noticed that he was having a lot of angst.
                 Even like at times he didn't have -- he
                 wasn't really willing to talk to me."

            •    "[Munera] continued feeling with a lot of
                 angst."

            •    "[Munera] has always been a very calm type
                 of person."

            While        testimony      about     personal       observations        is

permissible      under    our   rules    of     evidence,    the    district      court

correctly drew a line by prohibiting Holguin from testifying about

Munera's internal emotional state, which she had no personal

knowledge of.       See Fed. R. Evid. 602 ("A witness may testify to a

matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a

finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.");

Concepcion-Guliam, 62 F.4th at 32 (permitting testimony about

witness's       observations     where    there     was     no     mention   of    the

defendant's state of mind).             For example, she was prevented from

testifying about how Munera was impacted by hearing CS's struggles

and what emotional state he was in when he relayed that information

to her.     The district court also correctly prevented Holguin from

testifying about what Munera told her he was feeling since such

                                        - 16 -
testimony was clearly offered for the truth -- proving that CS's

alleged pleas to do a drug deal impacted Munera -- and thus

constituted inadmissible hearsay.5           See Fed. R. Evid. 801; United

States v. Tuesta-Toro, 29 F.3d 771, 776 (1st Cir. 1994) (explaining

that admission of an out-of-court statement offered for proving

the truth of the matter asserted constitutes error).

           Munera next contends that Holguin was impermissibly

constrained from testifying about CS's reported living conditions

and his business proposition for Munera, but his contentions lack

support. Here, too, the district court carefully policed the rules

of evidence.    As explained supra, the district court did not abuse

its discretion by precluding Holguin from testifying to facts where

there was no foundation laid for her personal knowledge of said

facts, such as what CS was experiencing, how CS was describing his

financial hardship, what CS's living conditions were, and what

business   CS   was   proposing     to   Munera.         However,    Holguin   was

permitted to testify to what Munera told her that CS told him about

his   financial    and   economic    problems      and    about     the   business

opportunity.      For example, she was permitted to say that Munera

recounted to her that CS told him that he "was in a lot of trouble,"

that "he was having financial hardship," "that his family was going

      5Munera's sole argument on appeal is that Holguin's testimony
was admissible as nonhearsay. Thus, we take no position on whether
said testimony was admissible under an exception to the rule
against hearsay, since any such argument is waived.

                                    - 17 -
through financial hardship as well," "that he would bring this up

very often," that "[h]e needed to solve these financial problems

at once," that "not only was he going hungry but his family was

going hungry as well," that "he was not living in a very good

living conditions [sic]," that "he was living worse than a rat,"

and "that it was business that was related to drugs."                        This

testimony was properly admitted for its effect on the listener's

state of mind -- here, Munera.         See United States v. Feliz, 794

F.3d    123,    132-33      (1st      Cir.     2015)        (explaining      that

"testimony . . . offered to show the effect of the words spoken on

the listener . . . is a nonhearsay utterance because it is not

being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted").                   Despite

Munera's claims to the contrary, the record makes clear that

Holguin was permitted to testify about the topics now complained

of, within the constraints imposed by the rules of evidence. Thus,

we   discern   no   abuse   of    discretion     in   the    district     court's

evidentiary rulings.

                                 C. Sentencing

           On appeal, Munera advances two sentencing challenges.

We begin with his first argument: that the district court erred in

denying him safety valve relief.

                             1. Safety Valve

           Before proceeding to the merits of Munera's claim, we

pause to provide some context.           In 1994, Congress enacted the

                                    - 18 -
safety     valve   to    provide   relief        to   certain   first-time   drug

trafficking offenders facing mandatory minimum sentences.                 See 18

U.S.C. § 3553(f); United States v. Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d 146,

150 (1st Cir. 2000).        When applicable, the safety valve reduces a

defendant's offense level by two points and permits the sentencing

judge to disregard the mandatory minimum sentence provided in

certain drug trafficking statutes.               See Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d

at 150.        Although there are five requirements that a defendant

must meet to obtain safety valve relief, only the fifth and final

criterion of the statute, as amended in 2018, is at issue here.

It requires that "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."6       § 3553(f)(5);    U.S.S.G.

     6    The first four safety valve requirements are:

               (1) the defendant does not have more than 1
               criminal history point, as determined under
               the [S]entencing [G]uidelines;

               (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;

               (3) the offense did not result in death or
               serious bodily injury to any person;

                                        - 19 -
§ 5C1.2(a)(5).     Munera, as the defendant, "bears the burden of

proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has satisfied

this requirement."    Padilla-Colón, 578 F.3d at 30.

           Turning to the case at hand, Munera contends that the

district court failed to make an "independent determination" as to

his eligibility for relief.        As evidence, he points to the fact

that the district court referenced a probation recommendation that

did not exist, as well as the court's failure to make specific

factual findings supporting its decision.         He also claims that the

district   court   erred   by   crediting   the   government's   arguments

opposing relief because said arguments were "insufficient."

           We review a district court's safety valve determination

de novo when the determination rests on conclusions of law and for

clear error when it rests on findings of fact.            See id. at 29.

Clear error review is "exceedingly deferential"; thus we will not

"disturb either findings of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom

unless the whole of the record compels a strong, unyielding belief

           (4) the defendant was not an organizer,
           leader, manager, or supervisor of others in
           the   offense,   as  determined   under   the
           [S]entencing [G]uidelines and was not engaged
           in a continuing criminal enterprise, as
           defined in section 408 of the Controlled
           Substances Act.

United States v. Padilla-Colón, 578 F.3d 23, 30 n.4 (1st Cir.
2009); see § 3553(f)(1)-(4); § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(4).

                                  - 20 -
that a mistake has been made."           United States v. Matos, 328 F.3d

34, 39-40 (1st Cir. 2003).           Because "evaluating witness testimony

typically     involves    fact-sensitive       judgments     and     credibility

calls," such decisions "fit comfortably within the margins of the

clear error standard."         Id. at 40.

             As to the district court's decision-making process, it

is clearly established in our case law that a sentencing judge

must independently determine whether a defendant is eligible for

safety valve relief.       See United States v. White, 119 F.3d 70, 73

(1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Miranda–Santiago, 96 F.3d 517,

529 (1st Cir. 1996).       Additionally, such a finding should "rest[]

on more than 'bare conclusions.'"           United States v. Bravo 489 F.3d

1, 12 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Miranda–Santiago, 96 F.3d at 529).

Nevertheless, "bare conclusion[s]" may suffice if there is "easily

recognizable support in the record" for the finding.                    Miranda–

Santiago, 96 F.3d at 529.

             Munera first argues that we cannot find that the district

court made an independent determination where the court adopted a

recommendation from the probation office that was nonexistent.

While discussing the safety valve, the district court said, "The

Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the Probation Office

is appropriate."      As Munera points out, the probation office did

not   take   a   stance   on   his    eligibility   for    relief,    thus   this

statement was made in error.           Munera's contention might have had

                                      - 21 -
teeth if the district court stopped there, but the court continued

on and stated the following:

            The safety valve adjustment does not apply
            here. The Court agrees with the government's
            argument that, based upon a preponderance of
            the evidence standard . . . the defendant's
            testimony was not truthful and that he does
            not satisfy the fifth criterion of the so-
            called safety valve application. He did not
            give completely truthful evidence and he
            certainly did not give all of the background
            information with respect to his participation
            in this offense during the trial.

The record establishes that the district court did not merely defer

to the probation office on the safety valve issue.                      Rather, it

made an eligibility determination after overseeing a four-day jury

trial,     where   the    defendant      testified,      and    after    receiving

sentencing memoranda and hearing oral argument from both sides on

the safety valve issue.        See Matos, 328 F.3d at 40 (affirming the

district    court's      eligibility     decision   after      noting    that   the

district court "carefully examined" witness testimony and listened

to the parties' credibility arguments); cf. Bravo 489 F.3d at 12

(remanding the district court's safety valve determination where

the defendant's eligibility arguments were summarily denied).

While the district court did not make specific factual findings,

their    absence   alone    does   not    constitute     error -- contrary       to

Munera's claim -- given that the court explicitly credited the

government's       argument    opposing        relief,    and     thus     "easily

                                      - 22 -
recognizable support in the record" exists for the district court's

decision.    See Miranda–Santiago, 96 F.3d at 529.

            Munera next argues that the district court erred when it

credited the government's argument opposing relief because the

government failed to "'come forward with some sound reason to

suggest' that [Munera]'s proffer [wa]s untruthful or incomplete."

See United States v. Martinez, 9 F.4th 24, 37 (1st Cir. 2021)

(quoting Miranda–Santiago, 96 F.3d at 529 n.25).         The record

clearly establishes, however, that, in its memorandum and argument

at sentencing, the government pointed out various ways -- citing

specific examples -- that Munera's testimony was contradicted,

implausible, or otherwise incomplete.7     We have previously held

that such a showing by the government, if credited, is more than

sufficient to justify denial of safety valve relief.     See United

States v. Marquez, 280 F.3d 19, 24-25 (1st Cir. 2002).

     7 For example, the government highlighted the inconsistency
between Munera's trial testimony -- where he claimed that, prior
to the transaction with CS, he had never engaged in drug
trafficking -- with his statements to CS during their recorded
conversations -- where he claimed, among other things, that he had
a Mexican cocaine supplier and discussed the drug trade like an
experienced trafficker.     The government also emphasized the
implausibility of Munera's claim that he was going to temporarily
hold the drugs for CS by pointing to the fact that Munera
negotiated for a more favorable sale price and was concerned about
the quality of the drugs, both of which are inconsistent with him
merely providing storage.     Additionally, the government cited
specific evidence that Munera did not provide during his testimony,
including details about his Mexican source of supply, customers,
and prior involvement with East Boston cocaine traffickers.

                               - 23 -
            Despite Munera's stated challenge, the essence of his

argument appears to be that we should disregard the government's

reasonable interpretation of the facts, which the district court

credited, in favor of his own.        We refuse to do so.     "The default

rule is that when more than one sensible interpretation of a

particular    set   of   circumstances    can   supportably   be   drawn,   a

sentencing court's decision to credit one alternative and reject

another cannot be deemed clearly erroneous."           Matos, 328 F.3d at

40-41; see also United States v. Rodríguez-Ortiz, 455 F.3d 18, 25

(1st Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court did not err

when   it   credited     a   government   witness's   testimony    over   the

defendant's in denying safety valve relief); Marquez, 280 F.3d at

24-25 (explaining that the district court did not err in finding

the defendant ineligible for safety valve relief where his answers

were "incredible" and strained credulity).             Our review of the

record reveals no error here.        The government's evidence, and the

record as a whole, provides ample support for the district court's

finding that Munera failed to meet the safety valve's complete and

truthful disclosure requirement.

               2. District Court's Sentencing Comments

            Munera advances one final argument, raised for the first

time on appeal.     He contends that, because the district court did

not advance a factual basis for denying safety valve relief, it is

possible that improper bias may have tainted the court's decision.

                                    - 24 -
As evidence, Munera points to the following remarks from the

district court during the sentencing hearing:

           And to add insult to injury, you came into
           this country illegally and remained an illegal
           alien while you committed this and no doubt
           other crimes. For all of that, you deserve a
           long prison sentence, not only to deter you
           from ever committing a similar crime, but also
           to deter anyone else who thinks that he can
           abuse our immigration laws and spread poison
           in our midst without serious consequences. It
           won't happen on my watch.

           To the extent that Munera argues that his sentencing

hearing may have been tainted by what he asserts was bias based on

the judge's reference to his immigration status, we note that he

failed to object below and thus we review for plain error on

appeal.   See United States v. Rondón-García, 886 F.3d 14, 20 (1st

Cir. 2018) (explaining that a defendant's unpreserved claim that

the   sentencing   court    relied       on    an    impermissible     factor     at

sentencing is reviewed for plain error).                 To prevail, a defendant

must establish: "(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or

obvious   and   which      not    only        (3) affected      the   defendant's

substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."                   United

States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440, 445 (1st Cir. 2007).                       "In the

sentencing   context    that     translates         to   a   requirement   that    a

defendant must paint a picture that illuminates 'a reasonable

probability that, but for the error, the district court would have

                                   - 25 -
imposed a different, more favorable sentence.'"      Id. at 447

(quoting United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 39 (1st

Cir. 2006)).   Here, Munera makes "no attempt to bear his burden

under plain-error review," and thus any such argument is waived.

United States v. Franklin, 51 F.4th 391, 400 (1st Cir. 2022).

                         III. Conclusion

         For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                             - 26 -