United States v. Fernando Acevedo-Fitz
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 286
7th Cir.2014Background
- Acevedo‑Fitz pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 1 kilogram of heroin and faced a 120‑month statutory minimum sentence.
- The government conducted two safety‑valve debriefings in January 2013 in which agents say Acevedo‑Fitz lied and denied documented transactions and contacts that contradicted wiretaps and his plea admissions.
- In May 2013 (before sentencing) Acevedo‑Fitz — through a letter drafted by counsel and signed by him — disclosed identities of customers and supplier and described eight transactions; he argued this cured prior falsehoods.
- The government maintained his earlier debriefing lies and the incompleteness of the letter made him ineligible for the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
- The district court found the January debriefings demonstrated denials of provable conduct, called the May letter “too little too late,” and denied safety‑valve relief.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) intentional deception in attempts to obtain the safety valve forfeits entitlement and (2) the district court’s finding that his disclosure remained incomplete was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Acevedo‑Fitz) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior lies during safety‑valve debriefings preclude eligibility under § 3553(f)(5) | His May 2013 letter, provided before sentencing, corrected earlier lies and satisfied the requirement of truthful, complete disclosure | Prior intentional lies show lack of good‑faith cooperation and justify denial of safety‑valve relief; the May letter was incomplete and not credible | Court held intentional deception forfeits safety‑valve eligibility; district court’s denial affirmed |
| Whether a last‑minute truthful disclosure can cure earlier misstatements | Last disclosure makes timing and truth separate; only final truth matters | Timing and good‑faith cooperation matter; repeated deception undermines eligibility | Court rejected separate‑timing theory; sustained precedent that lies can bar relief |
| Whether the May 2013 letter was a complete, truthful disclosure | Letter identified customers, supplier, transactions, and locations; thus met the statutory requirement | Letter was minimal, lacked detail, and could not overcome earlier contradictions and denials | Court agreed letter was incomplete and insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden |
| Standard of review for safety‑valve eligibility findings | N/A (procedural) | Factual determinations are reviewed for clear error | Court applied clear‑error review and found no clear error in district court’s factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Montes, 381 F.3d 631 (7th Cir.) (lying undermines safety‑valve eligibility)
- United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144 (7th Cir.) (safety valve limited to those making good‑faith attempts to cooperate)
- United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to prove full and honest disclosure)
- United States v. Corson, 579 F.3d 804 (7th Cir.) (standard of review and safety‑valve analysis)
- United States v. Nunez, 627 F.3d 274 (7th Cir.) (government challenges to truthfulness shift burden; bare assertions insufficient)
- United States v. Ponce, 358 F.3d 466 (7th Cir.) (district court may consider lack of candor when deciding eligibility)
- United States v. Martinez, 301 F.3d 860 (7th Cir.) (safety‑valve burden and completeness requirement)