Court Opinion

ID: 9389264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 14:01:38.041138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.242902
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11761    Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11761
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       VALENTINO DEWITT EDGECOMBE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant,

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20519-DPG-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11761     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11761

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Valentino Edgecombe appeals his 60-month sentence for
       controlled substance convictions. First, although he did not move
       for it below, Mr. Edgecombe argues that the district court erred
       when it failed to continue his sentencing hearing. Second, Mr.
       Edgecombe contends the district court erred when it refused to
       question him under seal. Had the court done so, according to Mr.
       Edgecombe, it would have properly found he qualified for a sen-
       tence below the 60-month mandatory minimum pursuant to
       U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)’s safety valve. As an initial matter, Mr.
       Edgecombe made no argument on appeal that the district court
       committed legal or factual error in its determination that he was
       not eligible for safety-valve relief. His sole arguments on appeal
       concern alleged procedural errors.
                   I.    Continuation of Sentencing Hearing
              When an appellant contends the court should have exer-
       cised its authority to sua sponte continue the trial, we review for
       an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889,
       914 (11th Cir. 2020). The defendant has the burden to demonstrate
       that the decision was an abuse of discretion and that it produced
       specific, substantial prejudice. See id. To establish specific preju-
       dice, the defendant “must identify relevant, non-cumulative
USCA11 Case: 22-11761     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-11761               Opinion of the Court                        3

       evidence” he would have presented had a continuance been
       granted. United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 708 (11th Cir. 1993).
               Here, Mr. Edgecombe has failed to identify specific evidence
       that he would have presented had he received a continuance. In-
       stead, Mr. Edgecombe generally alleges he would have proven his
       truthful cooperation to satisfy the safety valve exception. Further,
       the district court had already cast doubt upon Mr. Edgecombe’s
       ability to prove his veracity when it stated: “The problem here is
       [Edgecombe] provided inconsistent statements and it is really an
       untenable task for me to now figure out, how under these circum-
       stances what is truthful based on what he might say today.”
             Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion to
       not continue the hearing.
                              II.    Sealed Record
              We review whether to seal portions of the record for abuse
       of discretion. United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1238 n. 25
       (11th Cir. 2012). Courts have discretion to determine which as-
       pects of the record should be sealed, but that discretion is guided
       by the presumption of openness. Id. at 1238–39.
              To overcome the presumption of openness and justify clos-
       ing the courtroom to the public during a criminal proceeding, four
       elements must be satisfied: (1) the party seeking to close the pro-
       ceedings “must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be
       prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to
       protect that interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable
USCA11 Case: 22-11761      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11761

       alternatives to closing the” proceeding; and (4) the trial court “must
       make findings adequate to support the closure.” Waller v. Georgia,
       467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984); United States v. Moon, 33 F.4th 1284, 1298
       (11th Cir. 2022).
              Here, Mr. Edgecombe did not demonstrate that sealing the
       hearing was necessary to protect his safety or show an overriding
       interest to overcome the presumption of openness. Therefore, Mr.
       Edgecombe has failed to show that the district court abused its dis-
       cretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.