Court Opinion

ID: 9949855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 19:00:38.510292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:05.633204
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1030     Document: 010111014230       Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 12, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-1030
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:19-CR-00084-RM-1)
  HUOSHENG XIAN,                                               (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before EID, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                      ________________________________

       Huosheng Xian appeals his mandatory minimum sentences for crimes related

 to his participation in a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute large quantities of

 marijuana. Xian contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that he did

 not satisfy the requirements of the statutory safety valve for mandatory minimum

 sentences. We hold that Xian is ineligible for the statutory safety valve because, as

 we explained in United States v. Zhong, Xian did not disclose to the government

 information sufficient to establish his mens rea for the crimes of which he was

 convicted, and therefore did not provide “all information and evidence” he had

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-1030    Document: 010111014230        Date Filed: 03/12/2024      Page: 2

 “concerning the . . . offenses” of conviction, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

 ___ F.4th ____ (10th Cir. 2024) (slip op., at 12–14). Accordingly, we affirm the

 district court.

        We resolve this case using the same material facts as we considered in our

 concurrently-filed opinion in Zhong, ___ F.4th at ____ (slip op., at 2–7), and for the

 same reasons we explained in that case. Accordingly, we repeat the facts and

 reasoning only to the extent necessary to explain the disposition of Xian’s appeal.

        As we explained in Zhong, “a defendant seeking safety-valve relief must

 ‘truthfully provide[] to the Government all information and evidence the defendant

 has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of

 conduct,’” and must do so before the defendant’s sentencing hearing. ___ F.4th at

 ____ (slip op., at 8) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5)). The statutory requirement to

 provide “‘all information’ means ‘all information.’” Id. at ____ (slip op., at 17). A

 defendant’s state of mind is among the information “the defendant has,” § 3553(f)(5),

 so the requirement “includes a defendant’s mens rea.” ___ F.4th at ____ (slip op., at

 15, 17). Safety-valve relief may not be granted “when to do so would directly

 undermine the jury’s verdict,” so a defendant must provide, at a bare minimum,

 information sufficient to demonstrate that he had the mens rea of his crime of

 conviction. Id. at ____ (slip op., at 9) (internal quotation marks and alteration

 omitted).

        Xian did not provide the government with information sufficient to prove his

 mens rea for the crimes of which he was convicted. In order to satisfy the

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1030    Document: 010111014230       Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 3

 requirements of § 3553(f)(5), Xian and his co-defendant, Zhong, provided the

 government with a joint proffer letter and joint written addendum prior to sentencing.

 In those written materials, Xian provided information sufficient to prove that he had

 the mens rea of negligence—that he “knew or most definitely should have known”

 that he was participating in a criminal marijuana-trafficking conspiracy. R. Vol. II

 (sealed) at 58. However, a jury convicted Xian of participating in the conspiracy not

 only “knowingly,” but also “intentionally,” and “voluntarily,” “with the intent to

 advance its purposes.” R. Vol. I at 183, 189–90, 199. Likewise, a jury convicted

 Xian of intentional conduct on two other counts. See, e.g., id. at 183–84, 192, 196,

 199, 200. Furthermore, for the reasons we explained in Zhong, Xian’s admission that

 the “knew or should have known” that he was living for free in exchange for his

 assistance is sufficient only to show negligence—not knowledge, and not the higher

 mens rea of each of his crimes of conviction. R. Vol. II (sealed) at 58; see Zhong,

 ___ F.4th at ____ (slip op., at 12–14) (citing United States v. Kalu, 791 F.3d 1194,

 1208 (10th Cir. 2015)). Xian did not provide in his proffer letter or addendum

 information sufficient to show purpose or intent.

       As we explained in Zhong, for the district court to conclude that Xian

 “provided the government with all the information [he] had concerning [his] offenses

 of conviction” would have contradicted the jury’s finding that he “did possess the

 necessary mens rea for each count,” namely, “intent.” ___ F.4th at ____ (slip op., at

 14). Xian “cannot have disproved by a preponderance of the evidence what the jury

 found true beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Therefore, “it was not clearly erroneous

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1030     Document: 010111014230        Date Filed: 03/12/2024     Page: 4

 for the district court to conclude that [Xian] failed to provide the Government with

 all the information [he] had concerning the offense of conviction.” Id. at ____ (slip

 op., at 15). The district court therefore did not clearly err in concluding that he did

 not qualify for safety-valve relief.

        Xian makes several distinct arguments that the district court otherwise clearly

 erred in denying safety-valve relief. First, he argues that the district court erred by

 conflating Zhong’s statements, actions, and credibility with Xian’s. He also argues

 that the district court improperly considered whether Xian was truthful about why he

 came to the United States, because he contends it was irrelevant to his offenses.

 Furthermore, Xian disputes several of the inconsistencies the district court found in

 his proffer and addendum, namely: the vague information Xian provided regarding

 Xian’s debt to another member of the marijuana-growing conspiracy; the lack of

 detail in the proffer letter regarding Xian’s and Zhong’s payment of utility bills at

 their residence; inconsistencies about where Xian and Zhong lived when they took

 certain actions to further the conspiracy; and discrepancies regarding the number of

 trash bags full of marijuana they moved. Finally, Xian argues that the district court

 improperly found him not to be credible when he testified that he did not know which

 door in his house led to the basement where marijuana was growing. Xian contends

 that each of these purported errors provides a basis to reverse the district court’s

 denial of safety-valve relief.

        However, we need not reach Xian’s claims of error. As we explained in

 Zhong, “‘[e]ven where the lower court reached its conclusions from a different or

                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-1030    Document: 010111014230        Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 5

 even erroneous course of reasoning,’ this Court ‘will affirm the rulings of the lower

 court on any ground that finds support in the record,’ and the record here requires us

 to affirm the district court.” ___ F.4th at ____ (slip op., at 15–16) (quoting United

 States v. Davis, 339 F.3d 1223, 1227 (10th Cir. 2003)). Xian is ineligible for safety-

 valve relief for the reason explained in Zhong and repeated above: he did not provide

 the Government with all information concerning his offenses of conviction. None of

 the purported errors identified by Xian absolve him of his obligation to provide such

 information under § 3553(f)(5). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in

 denying Xian safety-valve relief.

       AFFIRMED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Allison H. Eid
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            5