Court Opinion

ID: 9363754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 17:00:34.796126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.948902
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13294    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13294
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JUSTIN JOSEPH GARZA,
       a.k.a. Poncho,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00082-KKM-TGW-1
USCA11 Case: 21-13294     Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2023    Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-13294

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Justin Joseph Garza appeals the district court’s finding that
       he was ineligible for safety valve relief. We affirm.
                                        I.
              Garza pleaded guilty to: (1) conspiring to distribute and pos-
       sess with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of metham-
       phetamine; (2) distributing and possessing with the intent to dis-
       tribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine; and (3) pos-
       sessing with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of meth-
       amphetamine.
              Garza’s base offense level was thirty-two, but his offense
       level was reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsibility,
       making his final offense level twenty-nine. Based on his offense
       level and lack of criminal history, Garza’s advisory guideline range
       was eighty-seven months to one hundred eight months’ imprison-
       ment. The offenses of conviction each carried a ten-year manda-
       tory minimum, however, so his guideline range became one hun-
       dred twenty months’ imprisonment.
              Before sentencing, Garza sought safety valve relief to reduce
       his sentence under guideline section 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. section
       3553(f). Garza argued that he qualified for safety valve relief be-
       cause he “truthfully provided to the [g]overnment all information
USCA11 Case: 21-13294     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2023   Page: 3 of 7

       21-13294              Opinion of the Court                       3

       and evidence[] he ha[d] about this offense before the sentencing
       hearing.” Garza argued that he met with “case agents to provide
       the [g]overnment all information and evidence that he had about
       the offense,” including “the transactions, communications[,] and
       specific details of this conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.”
       He told the government that he “was the source of the metham-
       phetamine,” but “the [g]overnment and its agents did not want to
       discuss the specifics of this conspiracy.”
               The government opposed Garza’s eligibility for safety valve
       relief, arguing that he failed to disclose everything he knew about
       the conspiracy. Specifically, the government argued that Garza re-
       fused to answer the following questions: (1) “From whom did he
       obtain the methamphetamine?” (2) “How did he come into contact
       with the supplier(s)?” (3) “What was the supplier’s phone number?”
       (4) “What, if any, other numbers did the supplier(s) utilize?” (5)
       “Where did Garza go to obtain the methamphetamine?” (6) “If it
       was someone’s residence, where was it?” (7) “What did this resi-
       dence look like?” (8) “Who else was in the residence?” (9) “Was
       there any evidence of drug trafficking in the house, such as addi-
       tional narcotics, money, firearms, or drug paraphernalia?” (10)
       “What did Garza do with the money made from selling metham-
       phetamine?” (11) “What bank accounts, if any, did he use to con-
       ceal proceeds?” (12) “How was he able to pay for his antique Chevy
       Caprice with aftermarket additions or his 2019 Dodge Hellcat
       when [he] . . . had no reported income with the State of Florida
USCA11 Case: 21-13294     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court               21-13294

       since 2017?” (13) “Why [we]re these cars registered in the name of
       a family member?”
              At sentencing, Garza argued that the unanswered questions
       didn’t apply to the offenses of conviction. He argued that “the four
       corners of this conspiracy began and ended with this sale” and that
       there was “no evidence or information that during this conspiracy
       there was yet another person who sourced the methampheta-
       mine.” Garza contended that the unanswered questions related to
       “previous conspiracies or previous drug sales that ha[d] nothing to
       do with this conspiracy.” He maintained that this conspiracy con-
       sisted of “three people”—Garza, the codefendant, and the confi-
       dential informant—and that “[h]e was the source” of the metham-
       phetamine “for this conspiracy.”
              The government argued that Garza was indicted for conspir-
       ing with “other persons, both known and unknown,” and that the
       conspiracy included the unknown participants in Garza’s “chain of
       distribution.” The government argued that Garza knew more
       about where the methamphetamine came from and that he with-
       held information from the government.
               The district court agreed with the government. The district
       court explained that Garza wasn’t “claiming that he actually [wa]s
       the originator of the drugs.” “[T]he natural inference” from
       Garza’s guilty plea to a conspiracy charge was that “he would be
       able to say where he got his drugs from,” explained the district
       court. Because Garza failed to disclose that information, the dis-
       trict court found Garza ineligible for safety valve relief.
USCA11 Case: 21-13294      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       21-13294                Opinion of the Court                         5

                                         II.
              We review the district court’s factual finding in denying
       Garza’s safety valve relief for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106
       F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997) (reviewing the district court’s find-
       ing that the defendant didn’t provide a “complete and honest dis-
       closure to the government” for clear error).
                                        III.
               Safety valve relief “allows for sentencing without regard to
       any statutory minimum, with respect to certain offenses,” United
       States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation
       omitted), as long as the defendant satisfies the criteria established
       in section 5C1.2, Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. Under section 5C1.2, “not
       later than the time of the sentencing hearing,” the defendant must
       “truthfully provide[] to the [g]overnment all information and evi-
       dence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that
       were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme
       or plan.” § 5C1.2(a)(5).
               We’ve called this part of section 5C1.2 the “tell all” provi-
       sion. United States v. Johnson, 375 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004)
       (cleaned up). “[T]o meet its requirements, the defendant has an
       affirmative responsibility to ‘truthfully disclose to the government
       all information and evidence that he has about the offense and all
       relevant conduct.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The burden is on the
       defendant to come forward and to supply truthfully to the govern-
       ment all the information that he possesses about his involvement
USCA11 Case: 21-13294      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13294

       in the offense, including information relating to the involvement
       of others and to the chain of the [drug] distribution.” Cruz, 106
       F.3d at 1557.
              The district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Garza
       didn’t “tell all” about the chain of methamphetamine distribution.
       It was Garza’s burden to show that he disclosed to the government
       everything he knew about the conspiracy and his possession and
       distribution of the methamphetamine. See id. But Garza refused
       to disclose anything about how he obtained the methampheta-
       mine. While Garza argues that he disclosed everything he knew
       about “this conspiracy” and that the source of the methampheta-
       mine was part of “previous conspiracies or previous drug sales that
       ha[d] nothing to do with this conspiracy,” we’ve already rejected a
       similar argument. See United States v. Camacho, 261 F.3d 1071,
       1073 (11th Cir. 2001). A defendant’s “refusal to reveal his source”
       of the drugs after pleading guilty to a drug conspiracy offense dis-
       qualifies him from safety valve relief for failing to “truthfully pro-
       vide the government with all of the information he had concerning
       the offense.” Id.
              Section 5C1.2 requires disclosure of a broad range of infor-
       mation, Johnson, 375 F.3d at 1302, and that information includes
       details known to the defendant about the source of the drugs in a
       drug conspiracy case, Camacho, 261 F.3d at 1073. Garza conceded
       that he didn’t disclose information about the source of the meth-
       amphetamine, so the district court’s finding that he failed to “tell
USCA11 Case: 21-13294   Document: 31-1   Date Filed: 01/17/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       21-13294            Opinion of the Court                    7

       all” under section 5C1.2 was not clearly erroneous. That made
       Garza ineligible for safety valve relief.
             AFFIRMED.