Court Opinion

ID: 990023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:15:31.091997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:45.191069
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-5709

FREDERICK LA'ROMA JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.
(CR-93-28-MU)

Submitted: July 23, 1996

Decided: August 8, 1996

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Calvin E. Murphy, MURPHY & CHAPMAN, P.A., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney,
Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Johnson appeals the district court's order sentencing him
to the statutory minimum of ten years for his role in a drug distribu-
tion ring. Johnson contends that the district court erred in failing to
sentence him below the mandatory minimum under the recently
enacted "safety-valve" provision of the sentencing guidelines.
Because Johnson did not affirmatively act to provide the government
with all the information he had concerning his offenses, we affirm his
sentence.

Johnson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. At the
time of sentencing, all but one of Johnson's co-defendants had
entered pleas of guilty. Johnson had not made a statement, nor had he
made an effort to make a statement to law enforcement officials
regarding the details of his involvement in the drug distribution ring.
According to Johnson, however, it appeared from the government's
discovery file that everything Johnson knew about the conspiracy had
already been disclosed to investigating agents.

The mandatory minimum sentence for Johnson's offense was 120
months. Johnson's guideline range was 87-108 months. In his sen-
tencing memorandum, Johnson maintained that he qualified for a sen-
tence below the mandatory minimum under the safety valve
guideline, USSG § 5C1.2,* although he had not provided information
to the government about the offense. At sentencing, Johnson asserted
that the government already knew all about the conspiracy when he
began plea negotiations and did not ask him to provide information.
Johnson argued that he should not be penalized for having no useful
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1994). Johnson was sentenced in September 1995.

                    2
information to give. The district court temporarily considered sus-
pending the hearing to provide Johnson with the opportunity to be
debriefed by government agents. The government responded that
Johnson had already been given the opportunity to provide informa-
tion and failed to come forward. The district court determined that,
because Johnson failed to affirmatively approach the government, he
did not qualify for the safety valve provision.

A defendant convicted of an offense under 21 U.S.C.A. § 846
(West 1981 & Supp. 1996) may be sentenced within the guideline
range without regard to any statutory minimum sentence if he meets
the five criteria set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(f) (West Supp. 1996),
and USSG § 5C1.2. Johnson did not comply with the fifth criteria,
which required him to provide to the government, no later than sen-
tencing, all information concerning the offense or offenses that were
part of the same common scheme or plan or same course of conduct.
This court has previously held that to comply with 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(f)(5), identical to USSG § 5C1.2(5), a defendant has "the bur-
den of affirmatively acting, no later than sentencing, to ensure that the
Government is truthfully provided with all information and evidence
[the defendant has] concerning the relevant crimes," even if his infor-
mation is of no use to the government and even if the government
does not seek to debrief him. United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182,
185-86 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3837 (U.S.
June 17, 1996) (No. 95-8998). Johnson acknowledges that he did not
do this, but argues that his willingness to cooperate was enough. In
accordance with Ivester, we hold that it was not.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3