Court Opinion

ID: 9375316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:42.461679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.084741
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30339         Document: 00516653272             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 21-30339                                   FILED
                                                                               February 23, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Nolan Washington,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:19-CR-394-9
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Nolan Washington pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea
   agreement, without an appeal waiver, to conspiracy to distribute
   methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with the intent to
   distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(a), and 846. The

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-30339      Document: 00516653272            Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                      No. 21-30339

   district court sentenced Washington to 120 months of imprisonment—the
   statutory mandatory minimum—and five years of supervised release.
          In his sole issue on appeal, Washington argues that the district court
   reversibly erred by not departing below the statutory mandatory minimum
   based on the safety-valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). In the district
   court, Washington relied primarily on the reasoning in United States v. Lopez,
   998 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 2021), but he did not discuss the reasoning in that
   case or explain why he was eligible for relief under § 3553(f). Now, he argues
   that the word “and” in § 3553(f)(1) should be interpreted to mean that a
   defendant is ineligible for safety-valve relief only if all three disqualifying
   conditions apply and that, based on that interpretation, he is eligible for relief
   because he does not have a two-point violent offense, under § 3553(f)(1)(C).
          We do not resolve whether Washington properly preserved this issue
   because he cannot show that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise, by
   refusing to apply § 3553(f)’s safety-valve provision to depart below the
   statutory minimum in light of United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th
   Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-6391), which
   was decided while this appeal was pending. See United States v. Rodriguez,
   602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir. 2010). Using a “distributive approach” to
   interpret § 3553(f)(1), the majority panel concluded that criminal defendants
   are “ineligible for safety valve relief under § 3553(f)(1) if they run afoul of any
   one of its requirements.” Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647 (emphasis added).
   Thus, because Washington ran afoul of § 3553(f)(1)(B)’s requirement that he
   not have a prior three-point offense under the guidelines—which he does not
   dispute—he was ineligible for relief under § 3553(f). See id.
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                           2