Court Opinion

ID: 2964082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:08.134344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.011749
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 16, 1996    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                     ____________

          No. 95-1751

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    ANGEL SANCHEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                     ____________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The  opinion of  this  Court issued  on  April 8,  1996,  is
          amended as follows:

               Page 8, first line  of the last paragraph:   Delete "agreed"
          and insert in place thereof "argued".

          April 12, 1996    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                     ____________

          No. 95-1751

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    ANGEL SANCHEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                     ____________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The  opinion of  this  court issued  on  April 8,  1996,  is
          amended as follows:

               Page 4, heading:  Change  the second line of the heading  by
          deleting "U.S.C." and inserting in place thereof "U.S.S.G."

               Page 6, line 11:   Delete "Committee's" and insert  in place
          thereof "Commission's".

               Page  9, third paragraph:  Delete all but the first sentence
          and insert in place of deleted material the following:  

               Section 1B1.10  is a  policy statement relative  to the
               retroactivity of amendments.   Section 1B1.10(c)  lists
               those   substantive   Amendments    intended   to    be
               retroactive.  The two-level  reduction was added to the
               Guidelines  by Amendment  515.   This Amendment  is not
               listed in Section 1B1.10(c).

               Page  9, fourth paragraph, lines  3-5:  Delete the bracketed
          material and insert in place thereof:  

               [Section 80001(b) of the  Violent Crime Control and Law
               Enforcement Act of 1994 which directs the Commission to
               implement Section 80001(a) (the safety valve statute)]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1751

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    ANGEL SANCHEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            M.  Kristin Spath,  Attorney,  with whom  Bjorn  Lange,  Assistant
            _________________                         ____________
        Federal Defender, was on brief for appellant.
            Jean B. Weld, Assistant United States  Attorney, with whom Paul M.
            ____________                                               _______
        Gagnon, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        ______

                                 ____________________

                                    April 8, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge.  This is a sentencing
                      BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge.
                              ____________________

            case.   Defendant-appellant Angel  Sanchez was indicted under

            21  U.S.C.    841(a)(1)  on  five  counts of  possessing  and

            distributing cocaine base -"crack  cocaine."  He entered into

            a plea agreement  with the government which  provided that he

            would plead guilty to counts one through four; count five was

            dismissed.   Prior to  signing the plea  agreement, defendant

            reserved   his   right  to   challenge   at   sentencing  the

            cocaine/cocaine  base sentencing  disparity.   Defendant  was

            sentenced to 108 months' incarceration with a  recommendation

            that  he be  placed in  a 1,000  hour drug  treatment program

            while in prison.  Part of the sentence was supervised release

            for  five years  after  release from  prison.   He  was  also

            assessed $200.00.

                      Defendant raises three issues on appeal:

                      (1)  The  district  court  erred  in
                           refusing    to   consider    at
                           sentencing   expert   testimony
                           proffered   by   defendant   in
                           support of his "rule of lenity"
                           challenge   to   the   enhanced
                           statutory   penalties   in   21
                           U.S.C.    841(B)(1)(b)(III) for
                           "cocaine base".

                      (2)  The  district  court  erred  in
                           failing to  consider a downward
                           departure under U.S.S.G. 5K2.0.

                      (3)  The defendant was entitled to a
                           two  level   reduction  of  the
                           applicable  offense  level,  in
                           order    to    implement    the
                           statutory  intent  of  the  so-
                           called      "safety      valve"

                                         -2-
                                          2

                           provisions of the Violent Crime
                           Control and Law Enforcement Act
                           of    1994,    18   U.S.C.     
                           3553(f)(1)-(5).

                         The Rule of Lenity Challenge to the 
                         The Rule of Lenity Challenge to the 
                         ____________________________________
                                Enhanced Penalties in 
                                Enhanced Penalties in 
                                ______________________
                   21 U.S.C.   841(b)(1)(b)(III) For Cocaine Base.
                   21 U.S.C.   841(b)(1)(b)(III) For Cocaine Base.
                   _______________________________________________

                      This issue,  the centerpiece of  defendant's brief,

            is  foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Camilo, 71
                                              _______________________

            F.3d  984 (1st Cir.  1995), which was  decided after briefing

            and  oral argument in this  case.  An  identical challenge to

            the  enhanced  penalties  for  crack cocaine  was  raised  in

            Camilo.  Id. at 989-90.  We rejected it for two reasons:
            ______   ___

                      First, the rule  of lenity argument fails
                      for essentially the same reason that this
                      circuit previously  rejected the argument
                      that scientific equivalence requires that
                      crack   offenders   be  given   the  same
                      sentences as those who traffic in cocaine
                      powder.  United States v. Singleterry, 29
                               ____________________________
                      F.3d 733, 740 (1st Cir. 1994).

                      . . . .

                         Second, in light of recent legislative
                      developments   we   conclude   that   the
                      Sentencing Commission cannot  be said  to
                      have  failed in  its  statutory  duty  to
                      investigate the distinction between crack
                      and cocaine  powder.  In response  to the
                      Sentencing  Commission's  April 13,  1995
                      vote, the House of Representatives joined
                      the  Senate on October 18, 1995 in voting
                      to retain the current  mandatory sentence
                      for   possession    of   crack   cocaine,
                      maintaining disparate sentences for crack
                      and  powder  cocaine  possession.     See
                                                            ___
                      Pub.L. No.  104-38,   1,  109 Stat.  334,
                      334 (1995).  And on October 30, 1995, the
                      President  signed  this  bill  into  law.
                      These  actions   preempt  the  Sentencing

                                         -3-
                                          3

                      Commission's April 13,  1995 decision  to
                      eliminate  the distinction  between crack
                      and cocaine powder from taking  effect on
                      November  1,  1995.    See  28  U.S.C.   
                                             ___
                      994(p).

            Id. at 990.
            ___

                        Failure of the District Court to Grant
                        Failure of the District Court to Grant
                        ______________________________________
                     a Downward Departure Under U.S.S.G.   5K2.0.
                     a Downward Departure Under U.S.S.G.   5K2.0.
                     ____________________________________________

                      The law  in this Circuit on  downward departures is

            clear.  We  lack jurisdiction  to review an  appeal which  is

            based on the discretionary  judgment of the sentencing judge.

            We do,  however, have jurisdiction  to consider a  refusal to

            depart  downward where  the sentencing  judge's decision  was

            based  on the mistaken belief  that he was  prohibited by law

            from doing so.  See United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619
                            ___ _______________________

            (1st Cir. 1994), and cases cited therein.

                      This case,  however, does not hinge  on whether the

            sentencing judge made a  discretionary decision not to depart

            downward or one based  on his perception that he  was legally

            constrained from doing so.

                      Section   5K2.0  of  the   Guidelines  provides  in

            pertinent part:

                      Grounds for Departure (Policy Statement)
                      _____________________
                      Under 18 U.S.C.    3553(b) the sentencing
                      court  may impose a  sentence outside the
                      range   established  by   the  applicable
                      guideline, if the court finds "that there
                      exists   an  aggravating   or  mitigating
                      circumstance of  a kind, or to  a degree,
                      not  adequately taken  into consideration
                      by    the   Sentencing    Commission   in
                      formulating  the  guidelines that  should
                      result  in  the  sentence different  from

                                         -4-
                                          4

                      that described." . .  .  The  controlling
                      decision as to whether and to what extent
                      departure  is warranted can  only be made
                      by the courts.

                      Defendant's  argument at  sentencing and  before us

            was  that a  downward departure  was warranted under    5K2.0

            because   of  a  circumstance   not  adequately   taken  into

            consideration by  the  Sentencing Commission  in  formulating

            Guideline   2D1.1(c),  (the   Drug  Quantity  Table).     The

            circumstance relied  on was "the findings and recommendations

            of  the Commission's  congressionally mandated  study of  the

            disparity between  powder and 'crack' cocaine."   Defendant's

            Brief at 14.

                      In  rejecting  defendant's  motion  for  a downward

            departure the district judge stated:

                         THE  COURT:  The Court appreciates the
                      fact that the  Sentencing Commission,  at
                      the  request of Congress,  has been asked
                      to review the  100-to-1 ratio.   However,
                      all we have at this  point in time is the
                      Sentencing  Commission's recommendations.
                      And in the opinion of the Court the Court
                      must  live within the current law and the
                      current Guidelines as  written now;  that
                      it would be  inappropriate for the  Court
                      essentially  to  adopt   as  new   policy
                      matters     which     only     constitute
                      recommendations and have  not been  acted
                      upon by  the United States Congress.   We
                      do not  know what  Congress  may do  with
                      those recommendations;  whether they will
                      be rejected in toto, whether they will be
                      adopted  in toto, or  whether they may be
                      adopted  with changes.   So  it would  be
                      pure speculation for  the Court really to
                      operate  on  the  assumption  that  these
                      changes  are going  to become  policy and
                      law.

                                         -5-
                                          5

                      Defendant argues that this statement shows that the

            sentencing judge believed that  he lacked the legal authority

            to depart from the  guideline range and thus his  decision is

            appealable as a mistake of law.  The government contends that

            the  judge   exercised  his   discretion  in  not   departing

            downwards,   focusing   on   the   phrase,   "it   would   be

            inappropriate."

                      We need  not settle this argument  because it makes

            no  difference.  We rule  that the circumstance  relied on by

            defendant,  for  a  downward  departure,  the  findings   and

            recommendations  of  the  Sentencing  Commission  relative to

            changing  the sentence  disparity between  cocaine  and crack

            cocaine, is  not a  ground for  departure under    5K2.0.   A

            Sentencing Commission's recommendation to the Congress is not

            the  kind  of  "circumstance"  that   the  provision  covers.

            Moreover,  we  cannot blind  our eyes  to  the fact  that the

            Congress shot down the Commission's recommendation.  In other

            words,  we affirm the ruling of the district judge whether it

            was discretionary or not.

                    Whether Defendant was Entitled to a Two-Level
                    Whether Defendant was Entitled to a Two-Level
                    _____________________________________________
                  Reduction Because of the "Safety Valve" Provisions
                  Reduction Because of the "Safety Valve" Provisions
                  __________________________________________________
                      of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994.
                      of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994.
                      _________________________________________

                      We   start  with   the  so-called   "safety  valve"

            provisions of  the Violent Crime Control  and Law Enforcement

            Act of 1994.  18 U.S.C.   3553(f) provides:

                         (f)    Limitation on  applicability of
                         (f)    Limitation on  applicability of
                      statutory  minimums  in certain  cases.--
                      statutory  minimums  in certain  cases.

                                         -6-
                                          6

                      Notwithstanding  any  other provision  of
                      law,  in  the  case of  an  offense under
                      section  401,   404,   or  406   of   the
                      Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841,
                      844, 846) or section  1010 or 1013 of the
                      Controlled  Substances Import  and Export
                      Act (21 U.S.C. 961, 963), the court shall
                      impose a sentence pursuant  to guidelines
                      promulgated   by    the   United   States
                      Sentencing  Commission under  section 994
                      of  title   28  without  regard   to  any
                      statutory minimum sentence, if  the court
                      finds at sentencing, after the Government
                      has been afforded the opportunity to make
                      a recommendation, that--

                             (1)  the  defendant does  not
                           have   more  than   1  criminal
                           history  point,  as  determined
                           under       the      sentencing
                           guidelines;

                              (2)  the  defendant did  not
                           use   violence    or   credible
                           threats of  violence or possess
                           a  firearm  or other  dangerous
                           weapon   (or   induce   another
                           participant   to   do  so)   in
                           connection with the offense;

                             (3)    the  offense  did  not
                           result  in   death  or  serious
                           bodily injury to any person;

                              (4) the defendant was not an
                           organizer, leader,  manager, or
                           supervisor  of  others  in  the
                           offense,  as  determined  under
                           the  sentencing guidelines  and
                           was not engaged in a continuing
                           criminal enterprise, as defined
                           in 21 U.S.C. 848; and

                              (5)  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

                                         -7-
                                          7

                           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.

                      In  arriving  at  the  incarceration  time  of  108

            months, the judge found that  defendant met all the  criteria

            of the safety valve  provisions.  Defendant was sentenced  on

            July  11,  1995.    The  Sentencing  Commission  proposed  an

            amendment to   2D1.1(b)  (specific offenses  characteristics)

            on May 10, 1995, to become effective November 1, 1995, unless

            modified  or  rejected  by  the Congress,  neither  of  which

            occurred.  The proposed amendment, therefore, became law.  It

            is part (4) of   2D1.1(b).  It provides:

                      (4)  If  the   defendant  meets  the
                           criteria    set     forth    in
                           subdivisions (1)-(5)  of  5C1.2
                           (Limitations  on  Applicability
                           of Statutory  Minimum Sentences
                           in   Certain  Cases)   and  the
                           offense level determined  above
                           is   level   26   or   greater,
                                        26
                           decrease by 2 levels.1
                                       2

            At sentencing  the judge  refused to apply  the then-proposed

            guideline because it had not yet been enacted.

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Subdivisions (1)-(5) of   5C1.2 state verbatim the safety
            valve provisions of 18 U.S.C.   3553(f).

                                         -8-
                                          8

                      The  question before  us  is not  what the  parties

            agrued and  briefed:   whether the proposed  amendment should

            have  been applied.   The  issue now  is whether  the enacted

            guideline should be applied retroactively.  Unfortunately for

            defendant, the answer is "no."

                      There  is a  solid  line of  cases in  this Circuit

            holding that Guideline  amendments are applied  retroactively

            if they clarify a  Guideline but are not  so applied if  they

            substantively  change  a Guideline.    See  United States  v.
                                                   ___  _________________

            LaCroix,  28 F.3d 223, 227 n.4 (1st Cir. 1994); United States
            _______                                         _____________

            v.  Prezioso,  989 F.2d  52, 53  (1st  Cir. 1993);  Isabel v.
            ____________                                        _________

            United States, 980 F.2d 60, 62 (1st Cir. 1992); United States
            _____________                                   _____________

            v. Havener, 905 F.2d 3, 4-8 (1st Cir. 1990).
            __________

                      The  Guideline  amendment  appears,   without  much

            doubt,  to be substantive.  It added an additional and wholly

            new part to  Guideline   2D1.1(b).   It does not  clarify the

            provisions of   5C1.2;  it mandates a decrease of  two levels

            if these provisions are  met and the  offense level is 26  or

            greater.

                      In addition to  our own analysis, we note  that the

            Sentencing Commission  did not consider this  amendment to be

            retroactive.  Section 1B1.0 is a policy statement relative to

            the retroactivity  of  amendments.   Section 1B1.10(c)  lists

            those substantive Amendments intended to be retroactive.  The

                                         -9-
                                          9

            two-level reduction  was added to the  Guideline by Amendment

            515.  This Amendment is not listed in Section 1B1.1(c).

                      Moreover, the Amendment does not state that it is a

            clarifying Amendment.  Amendment 515 states:  "this amendment

            adds  a  new  subsection  to   2D1.1  to  implement  [Section

            80001(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

            of  1994 which  directs the  Commission to  implement Section

            80001(a) (the safety valve statute)] by providing a two-level

            decrease in  offense level for cases meeting the criteria set

            forth  in    5C1.2(1)-(5).     The  effective  date  of  this

            amendment is November 1, 1995."

                      We can think of no reason for holding the Amendment

            to be retroactive.

                      The judgment  of the district court  is affirmed in
                      The judgment  of the district court  is affirmed in
                      ___________________________________________________

            all respects.
            all respects
            ____________

                                         -10-
                                          10