United States v. Diana Gamboa
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24936
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gamboa pled guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute (and to possess with intent to distribute) methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
- The district court sentenced her to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- She provided information to law enforcement under a proffer agreement and later moved to withdraw her plea, then withdrew the motion at sentencing.
- The court denied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), finding she was a supervisor under USSG § 3B1.1(c) and that she provided incomplete/false information in her proffer.
- Gamboa appealed asserting error in the safety-valve denial and in the denial of the withdrawal of her guilty plea; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety-valve eligibility | Gamboa argues she did not meet the supervisor criteria and truthful-disclosure requirements. | Gamboa contends the district court erred in finding supervisor status and incomplete information. | Court upheld denial and affirmed safety-valve ineligibility. |
| Supervisor finding standard | Gamboa challenges the factual basis for supervision finding as unsupported by the record. | The district court properly considered the evidence showing Gamboa directed a co-conspirator and controlled others. | Findings that Gamboa supervised others were not clearly erroneous; affirmed. |
| Credibility determinations | Gamboa attacks the credibility of government witnesses as the basis for the supervisor finding. | District court’s credibility determinations are not summary-reviewable and may be chosen between permissible views. | No clear error; court affirmed supervisor finding. |
| Withdrawal of guilty plea | Gamboa argues she preserved the right to appeal the denial of withdrawal of plea. | Because she withdrew the motion to withdraw, she waived appellate review under controlling precedent. | Gamboa knowingly withdrew the motion; appeal waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaines, 639 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2011) (set forth standards for safety-valve review and supervisor analysis)
- United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc; five safety-valve criteria)
- United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009) (examines supervision/participation in drug offense)
- United States v. Cole, 657 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding supervisor enhancement where defendant directed and controlled)
- United States v. Lopez, 431 F.3d 313 (8th Cir. 2005) (supervision element discussion; selling not sufficient alone)
- United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2011) (broader construction of 'supervisor')
- United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2010) (supervisor analysis; supervision of another participant)
- United States v. Atkinson, 85 F.3d 376 (8th Cir. 1996) (distinction between selling to personal user and supervision)
- United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708 (8th Cir. 2012) (context on quantities involved in distribution)