Court Opinion

ID: 9378212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 19:00:33.172239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.563903
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30112         Document: 00516671183             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/09/2023

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

                                       No. 22-30112                                   FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                             March 9, 2023
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Andre Zeno,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:19-CR-135-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Andre Zeno appeals the 60-month sentence imposed for possession
   with intent to distribute cocaine. Zeno posits 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); he urges 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, based
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30112      Document: 00516671183           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/09/2023

                                     No. 22-30112

   on that interpretation, that he is eligible for relief because he does not have a
   prior three-point offense under § 3553(f)(1)(B).
          The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirm-
   ance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. The govern-
   ment correctly asserts that the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Palo-
   mares, 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. In Palo-
   mares, the majority used a “distributive approach” to interpret § 3553(f)(1)
   and concluded that criminal defendants are “ineligible for safety valve relief
   under § 3553(f)(1) if they run afoul of any one of its requirements.” Palo-
   mares, 52 F.4th at 647.
          Because the government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law
   so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,”
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), sum-
   mary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance
   is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s al-
   ternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot.

                                           2