Court Opinion

ID: 9899444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 19:00:27.474834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:29.326553
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50395         Document: 00516970141             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50395
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 16, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jorge Luis Sanchez Rodriguez, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:20-CR-113-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Jorge Luis Sanchez Rodriguez, Jr. pleaded
   guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
   methamphetamine. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s written
   judgment and its denial of a sentence reduction under the safety-valve
   provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. To qualify for safety-valve relief, he

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50395      Document: 00516970141          Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/16/2023

                                    No. 23-50395

   has the burden of establishing eligibility for such a reduction, including
   showing that he timely and truthfully provided the government with all
   relevant information and evidence concerning the offense. U.S.S.G.
   § 5C1.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143,
   146-47 (5th Cir. 1996).
          This court reviews the district court’s decision whether to apply the
   safety valve for clear error and its interpretation of the guideline de novo.
   Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 145. “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is
   plausible, considering the record as a whole.” United States v. King, 773 F.3d
   48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
          Sanchez Rodriguez contends that he provided a complete and truthful
   account of his offense and relevant conduct during his initial interview and
   therefore satisfied his obligation under § 5C1.2(a)(5). However, his PSR
   notes that he was “deceptive and vague” during his interview and that “his
   story kept changing.” ROA.272-73. This court affirms the denial of safety-
   valve reductions when the defendant has made inconsistent statements to law
   enforcement or to the sentencing court. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, 65
   F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gonzalez-Compean, 179 F.
   App’x 904, 905 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Such behavior does not meet
   the guideline’s requirement of “truthfully provid[ing] . . . all information and
   evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.”              § 5C1.2(a)(5)
   (emphasis added).
          Sanchez Rodriguez complains that he tried to meet his burden by
   requesting a debriefing with the government multiple times, but that he was
   rebuffed. ROA.255. The government responds, claiming that it “is not
   required to debrief anyone.” Id. It further notes that Sanchez Rodriguez did
   not have to participate in a debrief to meet his burden, as he could have
   provided everything he knew in the form of a proffer. ROA.256.

                                          2
Case: 23-50395      Document: 00516970141           Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/16/2023

                                     No. 23-50395

          In United States v. Flanagan, we held that the government need not
   solicit safety-valve information via a debrief. 80 F.3d at 146. Instead, it is the
   defendant’s burden to ensure that all information has been provided by the
   time of sentencing. Id. at 146-47 (citation omitted). The facts here are slightly
   different than those in Flanagan, as Sanchez Rodriguez did allegedly attempt
   to debrief with the government. However, since Sanchez Rodriguez had
   alternative avenues to meet his burden beyond seeking a debriefing, such as
   offering a written proffer, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in
   ruling that this burden was not met. See United States v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 882,
   884 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 146) (holding that merely
   “express[ing] a willingness to provide the required information” does not
   meet a defendant’s burden); United States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1345-
   46, 1346 n.4 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 763
   (7th Cir. 1999)) (explaining that, without a truthful written proffer,
   willingness to be debriefed does not “satisfy the disclosure requirement” of
   the safety-valve provision).
          Sanchez Rodriguez also contends that his written judgment failed to
   conform to the district court’s orally pronounced sentence because it did not
   specify that his federal sentence would run concurrently with any
   subsequently imposed state sentence. See United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d
   378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006) (discussing conflicting judgments). The government
   is correct in responding that, because the state has formally declined to
   prosecute Sanchez Rodriguez for his conduct, any challenge to this
   discrepancy is moot. Victory on appeal would have no actual consequences
   for him. See Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363-64 (1987).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           3