Court Opinion

ID: 9412562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 20:01:46.831726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:39.229465
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12372    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 07/31/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12372
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       LAMAR LAURISTON LINDSAY,
       a.k.a. Linsey Lamar,
       a.k.a. Lamar S. Rowe,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12372      Document: 31-1          Date Filed: 07/31/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12372

                     D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60018-WPD-1
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Appellant Lamar Lindsay, proceeding with counsel, appeals
       his total sentence of 135 months’ imprisonment for attempting to
       distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine
       with intent to distribute. On appeal, he argues that the district
       court erred by finding that he was ineligible for safety valve relief
       under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) because he met just one of the disqualify-
       ing criteria in § 3553(f)(1). Having read the parties’ briefs and re-
       viewed the record, we vacate Lindsay’s sentence and remand this
       case to the district court for resentencing.
                                             I.
              We review a district court’s interpretation of § 3553(f) de
       novo. United States v. Garcon, 54 F.4th 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2022)
       (en banc), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 8, 2023) (No. 22-851).
                                             II.
              If a defendant meets the criteria in § 3553(f), he is entitled to
       a two-point offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18),
       and the district court must sentence him without regard to any stat-
       utory minimum sentence. U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(18), 5C1.2; 18
       U.S.C. § 3553(f). The safety valve provision in § 3553(f)(1) applies
       if the district court finds that the defendant does not have more
       than four criminal history points, a prior three-point offense, and a
USCA11 Case: 22-12372      Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 07/31/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12372                Opinion of the Court                          3

       prior two-point violent offense. § 3553(f)(1). In Garcon, we held
       that the word “and” in § 3553(f)(1) is conjunctive, and that a de-
       fendant is not disqualified from safety valve relief unless he meets
       all three of the disqualifying criteria listed in § 3553(f)(1). Garcon,
       54 F.4th at 1278-80. The government concedes that, under this
       rule, Lindsay is eligible for safety valve relief.
                                            III.
               The record demonstrates that the district court erred by
       finding that Lindsay did not qualify for safety valve relief under
       § 3553(f)(1). We stated in Garcon that a defendant is ineligible for
       safety valve relief solely if all three disqualifying criteria in §
       3553(f)(1) are met. See Garcon, 54 F.4th at 1278. The record indi-
       cates that Lindsay had one disqualifying factor under § 3553(f)(1)
       because he had a prior three-point offense, but he did not have
       more than four criminal history points or a prior violent two-point
       offense. See § 3553(f)(1). Because he did not meet all three disqual-
       ifying criteria, he was not disqualified from obtaining safety valve
       relief. See Garcon, 54 F.4th at 1278.
               Here, the district court declined to apply the safety valve;
       however, it selected a sentence within the guidelines range that
       would have applied if it had applied the safety valve provision. Un-
       der United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349-50 (11th Cir. 2006), a
       court can render a purposed guidelines error harmless by stating
       that it would impose the same sentence even if the defendant pre-
       vailed on that issue. If the district court makes a clear Keene finding,
       then we need not review the disputed issue, but rather, we can
USCA11 Case: 22-12372     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 07/31/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-12372

       affirm if the final sentence imposed based on the § 3553 factors is
       reasonable. Id. The district court did not make a clear Keene find-
       ing; thus, we conclude the sentencing error was not harmless.
       Lindsay qualified for a two-level safety valve reduction, and he was
       entitled to be sentenced without regard to any statutory minimum
       sentence. Accordingly, the district court erred in its determination
       that Lindsay was not eligible for safety valve relief, and we remand
       to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
             VACATED AND REMANDED.