Court Opinion

ID: 2964627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:33.153158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:56.046158
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1312

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                               REYNALDO GONZALEZ-VEGA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

        No. 96-1313

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 SANTOS OTERO-ROLON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Luis  Rafael Rivera,  by Appointment  of the  Court, for appellant
            ___________________
        Reynaldo Gonzalez-Vega.
            Miguel A.A.  Nogueras-Castro, by  Appointment of  the Court,  with
            ____________________________

        whom  Benicio  Sanchez-River, Federal  Public  Defender  and Carol  A.
              ______________________                                 _________
        Vazquez-Alvarez, Assistant Federal Public  Defender, were on brief for
        _______________
        appellant Santos Otero-Rolon.
            Jacabed Rodriguez  Coss,  Assistant United  States Attorney,  with
            _______________________
        whom  Guillermo  Gil, United  States  Attorney,  and Jose  A.  Quiles,
              ______________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     MAY 1, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      STAHL, Circuit Judge.  Defendants-appellants
                      STAHL, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            Reynaldo Gonzalez-Vega and Santos Otero-Rolon  pleaded guilty

            to  one  count  of aiding  and  abetting  each  other in  the

            possession, with intent to  distribute, of three kilograms of

            cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C.

              2.   At sentencing, the  district court  imposed upon  each

            defendant  the  statutory  minimum   term  of  sixty  months'

            imprisonment.  See 21 U.S.C.   841(b)(1)(B).  They now appeal
                           ___

            the  court's finding that they failed to meet the criteria of

            the  "safety  valve"  provision  for  relief  from  mandatory

            minimum sentences.  See  18 U.S.C.   3553(f)(1)-(5); U.S.S.G.
                                ___

               5C1.2.  Finding no  clear error in  the court's sentencing

            determination, we affirm.

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                        Pertinent Facts and Prior Proceedings
                        Pertinent Facts and Prior Proceedings
                        _____________________________________

                      The  facts as set forth  in the plea agreement, and

            to  which the parties agreed  at the change  of plea hearing,

            are as follows.  On August 21, 1995, postal employees at  the

            Hato  Rey Post Office in  San Juan, Puerto  Rico, noticed two

            suspicious Express  Mail parcels addressed to  Rochester, New

            York.   Upon investigation, both return  addresses were found

            to be nonexistent.   In addition, a U.S. Customs  Canine Unit

            detected  the  presence of  a  controlled  substance in  both

            packages.   Pursuant to a search warrant, the contents of the

            packages  were field  tested  and determined  to be  cocaine.

                                         -2-
                                          2

            Postal  agents forwarded  one  package ("package  No. 1")  to

            Rochester,  New  York  for  a controlled  delivery.    Postal

            inspectors retained the other package ("package No. 2") for a

            possible "reverse delivery."

                      Surprisingly, three days later  Otero-Rolon decided

            to effectuate the reverse delivery.  Armed with  the customer

            copy of the Express  Mail receipt, he claimed and  signed for

            package No.  2, which the authorities  had already determined

            contained approximately three kilograms  of cocaine.  At that

            time, a postal inspector surveilling the customer parking lot

            outside  the post  office noticed Gonzalez-Vega  loitering at

            the facility's  exit doors.   Gonzalez-Vega then  entered the

            post office  and made eye contact with  Otero-Rolon.  Moments

            later, both men exited  with package No. 2.   Agents arrested

            the two men and subsequently charged them with respect to the

            drugs  in  that  package.    Post  office  clerks  identified

            Gonzalez-Vega as  the  person who  mailed package  No. 1  and

            Otero-Rolon as the person who mailed package No. 2.

                      Thereafter, both men pleaded  guilty pursuant to  a

            plea  agreement in  which the  parties stipulated  to various

            sentencing recommendations,  including: a base  offense level

            of 28 under  U.S.S.G.    2D1.1, a three  level reduction  for

            their  mitigating roles  in  the offense,  and an  additional

            three level reduction for  acceptance of responsibility.  The

            plea  agreement acknowledged  possible further relief  if the

                                         -3-
                                          3

            defendants met  the criteria contained in  the "safety valve"

            provision.  See 18 U.S.C.   3553(f)(1)-(5); U.S.S.G.   5C1.2.
                        ___

                      At the sentencing hearing, the district court found

            the  stipulated base  offense level and  downward adjustments

            applicable to the defendants.  The court determined, however,

            that   neither   Gonzalez-Vega  nor   Otero-Rolon  truthfully

            provided   the  government  all  information  concerning  the

            offense,   as   required   by   18   U.S.C.       3553(f)(5).

            Consequently,  the court declined  to afford either defendant

            any relief  from the statutory minimum  term of imprisonment.

            This appeal ensued.

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

                                      Discussion
                                      Discussion
                                      __________

                      Gonzalez-Vega  and  Otero-Rolon   argue  that   the

            district  court clearly erred in finding  that they failed to

            meet the five  criteria listed in the safety valve provision.

            That provision, if applicable, requires a sentencing court to

            disregard the statutorily  imposed mandatory minimum sentence

            and impose  sentence pursuant  to the Sentencing  Guidelines.

            See 18 U.S.C.    3553(f).  The government concedes  that both
            ___

            men met  the first  four of  the criteria.   See 18  U.S.C.  
                                                         ___

            3553(f)(1)-(4).   In  dispute is  the fifth  criterion, which

            requires   a  defendant  to   "truthfully  provide[]  to  the
                                           __________

            Government all  information and evidence  the defendant  has"
                       ___

                                         -4-
                                          4

            regarding  the  offense.   18  U.S.C.    3553(f)(5) (emphasis

            added).1

                      In order  to qualify  for safety valve  relief, the

            defendant  must persuade the court  that he meets  all of the

            requirements.   See United States  v. Montanez, 82  F.3d 520,
                            ___ _____________     ________

            523 (1st Cir. 1996).  We review  for clear error the district

            court's  factual  determinations   underlying  the   question

            whether a defendant is  entitled to such relief.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Miranda-Santiago, 96 F.3d 517, 527 (1st Cir. 1996).
            ______    ________________

            "Where  there  is  more  than  one   plausible  view  of  the

            circumstances,   the   sentencing   court's    choice   among

            supportable  alternatives  cannot   be  clearly   erroneous."

            United States v. D'Andrea, 107 F.3d 949, 958 (1st Cir. 1997).
            _____________    ________

                      Previously, we have found clear error in the denial

            of safety  valve relief where  "the government did  not rebut

                                
            ____________________

            1.  In full, the fifth criterion requires that

                      not later than the time of the sentencing
                      hearing,  the  defendant  has  truthfully
                      provided    to    the   Government    all
                      information  and  evidence the  defendant
                      has  concerning  the offense  or offenses
                      that were  part  of the  same  course  of
                      conduct or  of a  common scheme  or plan,
                      but the  fact that the  defendant has  no
                      relevant or useful  other information  to
                      provide or that the Government is already
                      aware  of  the   information  shall   not
                      preclude  a  determination  by the  court
                      that the defendant has complied with this
                      requirement.

            18 U.S.C.   3553(f)(5).

                                         -5-
                                          5

            [defendant's]  facially plausible tale of limited involvement

            by pointing to information  [the] defendant must have known."

            Miranda-Santiago, 96 F.3d at 529.  Thus, a sentencing court's
            ________________

            "bare  conclusion"  that the  defendant  failed to  cooperate

            within the meaning of   3553(f)(5) is insufficient to support

            such a  finding "absent  either specific factual  findings or

            easily recognizable support in the record."  Id.
                                                         ___

                      We  consider  the facts  and legal  challenges with

            respect to each defendant in turn.

            A.  Otero-Rolon
            _______________

                      At his  change  of plea  hearing  and in  his  plea

            agreement,   Otero-Rolon  admitted   that   a  postal   clerk

            identified  him  as having  mailed package  No.  2.   The day

            before the sentencing hearing,  however, at a debriefing with

            the  government, he denied that  he mailed the  package.  The

            court found the later denial incredible and concluded that it

            created  the   likelihood  of  an   absence  of   information

            concerning the  identity of the person who supplied the drugs

            and  other particulars  surrounding the  package.   Presented

            with Otero-Rolon's recantation, the resulting factual vacuum,

            and other  inconsistencies in his informative  proffers,2 the

            district  court  found that  Otero-Rolon  did  not truthfully

                                
            ____________________

            2.  For  example, Otero-Rolon originally  told the government
            that  Gonzalez-Vega  asked him  to pick  up the  Express Mail
            package, then  later stated  that an acquaintance  he chanced
            upon  at a shopping mall hired the two defendants to retrieve
            the parcel.

                                         -6-
                                          6

            provide all information to  the government within the meaning

            of    3553(f)(5).  See United  States v. Wrenn, 66  F.3d 1, 3
                               ___ ______________    _____

            (1st Cir. 1995) (explaining  that defendant failed to provide

            "all"  information regarding  convicted offense  where, after

            claiming to have numerous drug customers, defendant "supplied

            nary a name to the government").

                      Unlike  the  sentencing court  in Miranda-Santiago,
                                                        ________________

            here, the court  identified specific and supportable  reasons

            for concluding  that  Otero-Rolon was  neither  truthful  nor

            completely    forthcoming     in    providing    information.

            Furthermore,  contrary to the defendant's proffer in Miranda-
                                                                 ________

            Santiago,  Otero-Rolon's later  denials and  new explanations
            ________

            rendered  his inexplicit  final  version  implausible on  its

            face.  While the court could have found that Otero-Rolon had,

            in  the  end,  provided  the government  with  all  pertinent

            information he had, its rejection of that conclusion reflects

            a readily plausible view of the evidence.  Therefore, we find

            no  clear error  in  the court's  factual determination  that

            Otero-Rolon did not meet the fifth  requirement of the safety

            valve provision.3 

                                
            ____________________

            3.  Otero-Rolon suggests  that the district  court denied him
            the opportunity  to provide  further relevant  information at
            his sentencing  hearing.   He  also intimates  that, had  the
            court queried  him, it would  have found credible  his latest
            version  of the facts surrounding the offense.  Our review of
            the  record  shows  otherwise.   At  the  hearing, the  court
            directly  asked  Otero-Rolon  whether   or  not  he  had  any
            information  to present other than that found in his previous
            submissions.   Otero-Rolon replied that he did not.  The fact

                                         -7-
                                          7

            B.  Gonzalez-Vega
            _________________

                      Like  Otero-Rolon,  Gonzalez-Vega  asserts that  he

            truthfully disclosed all information that he might reasonably

            have been expected to possess.  Our review of Gonzalez-Vega's

            contention that  the court's findings were clearly erroneous,

            however,  is  severely hindered  by  his  failure to  provide

            copies of  the sentencing  hearing transcript.   See Fed.  R.
                                                             ___

            App. P. 10(b)(2)  (requiring appellant to provide  transcript

            when  challenging  a  finding  on the  basis  of  evidentiary

            insufficiency).   We have  repeatedly held that,  "[w]here an

            appellant  raises  issues that  are  factually dependant  yet

            fails to provide a transcript of the pertinent proceedings in

            the   district  court,  .  .   .  we  will   not  review  the

            allegations."  Muniz Ramirez v.  Puerto Rico Fire Servs., 757
                           _____________     _______________________

            F.2d  1357,  1358  (1st  Cir.  1985);  see  also  Plummer  v.
                                                   ___  ____  _______

            Springfield  Terminal Ry. Co., 5  F.3d 1, 5  (1st Cir. 1993);
            _____________________________

            Batistini v. Aquino, 890  F.2d 535, 539 (1st Cir. 1989).   We
            _________    ______

            see no reason to depart from that rule in this case.

                      We do note, however, that both the government's and

            Gonzalez-Vega's appellate briefs indicate  that Gonzalez-Vega

            not only told materially  inconsistent stories concerning the

            offense, he may have  purposely withheld information as well.

            On  the record  before  us, we  can  only conclude  that  the

                                
            ____________________

            that the court did not find his final story truthful does not
            mean that  the court deprived Otero-Rolon  of the opportunity
            to render that account.  

                                         -8-
                                          8

            sentencing  court's  finding  that  Gonzalez-Vega  failed  to

            satisfy section  3553(f)(5)  was reasonable  considering  the

            evidence before it.4

                                         III.
                                         III.
                                         ____

                                      Conclusion
                                      Conclusion
                                      __________

                      For the  reasons stated above, we  will not disturb

            the  district court's  finding that  the defendants  were not

            entitled  to  relief   under  the  safety  valve   provision.

            Affirmed.
            Affirmed.
            ________

                                
            ____________________

            4.  At oral argument before this court, Gonzalez-Vega claimed
            that the  district court erroneously denied  him the benefits
            of  the safety  valve  provision because  the information  he
            withheld from  the government concerned conduct  unrelated to
            the charged  offense.  See  Wrenn 66 F.3d at  3 (declining to
                                   ___  _____
            define the scope of the phrase "offense or offenses that were
            part  of the same course of conduct  or of a common scheme or
            plan" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.   3553(f)(5)).  We will
            not  consider  this  unpreserved contention,  raised  at oral
            argument  for the first  time.  See United  States v. De Leon
                                            ___ ______________    _______
            Ruiz, 47 F.3d  452, 455  n.1 (1st Cir.  1995).   Furthermore,
            ____
            Gonzalez-Vega's  failure to  furnish a  sentencing transcript
            thwarts any meaningful analysis of this issue.

                                         -9-
                                          9