United States v. Angelo Holmes
694 F. App'x 933
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Holmes was convicted after a bench trial of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (over 500 grams) and faced a 10-year statutory mandatory minimum.
- PSR showed Holmes transported methamphetamine from Texas to a bus checkpoint after receiving drugs from a woman’s contact; Holmes admitted a prior similar trip in which he sold drugs in New Orleans.
- At sentencing the Government initially signaled Holmes had debriefed truthfully, but the DEA agent testified Holmes was not "forthcoming" about where/how he intended to sell the second load and admitted prior street sales.
- The district court denied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) (failure to "truthfully provide[] all information" about offenses in same course/scheme) and imposed the 10-year mandatory minimum.
- Holmes appealed both the denial of safety-valve relief and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holmes satisfied § 3553(f)(5) by truthfully providing all information about the offense | Holmes: denial rested on speculation; no proof he withheld specific plans for distribution | Gov: DEA agent testified Holmes refused to answer questions about planned sale; prior trip made inference reasonable | Court: Affirmed denial — agent testimony and Holmes’s prior trip support finding he was not fully forthcoming |
| Whether district court relied on mere conjecture to deny safety-valve relief | Holmes: court’s inference of undisclosed distribution plans was conjectural and insufficient | Gov: court based decision on concrete agent testimony and record facts | Court: Distinguishes Miranda‑Santiago and Miller; finds decision supported by specific evidence, not mere conjecture |
| Whether Holmes rebutted the Government’s evidence that he withheld information | Holmes: offered no evidence to contradict agent; declined to testify | Gov: relied on agent testimony and admissions about prior sale | Court: Holmes bore burden and failed to rebut; district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under § 841 | Holmes: Government didn’t prove he knew type/quantity beyond reasonable doubt | Gov: precedent supports conviction on these facts | Court: Rejected challenge as foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for safety-valve findings)
- United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 2014) (factual findings not clearly erroneous if plausible on the record)
- United States v. Miranda‑Santiago, 96 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 1996) (mere conjecture cannot alone deny safety-valve relief)
- United States v. White, 119 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 1997) (district court may independently assess witness truthfulness)
- United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 1999) (denial of safety valve cannot rest on pure speculation)
- United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009) (sufficiency challenge to § 841 conviction precedent)