United States v. Garcia
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6701
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Garcia pled guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute drugs.
- District court sentenced Garcia to 188 months, at the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range.
- Garcia claimed eligibility for safety valve relief under USSG § 5C1.2, citing two proffers of information.
- First proffer occurred before indictment; Garcia offered information for immunity but was not accepted and he provided no further information.
- Second proffer occurred after arrest; Garcia stated he served as money handler, not drug handler, but the government disputed his account after a proffer session.
- The district court found Garcia’s proffer unsatisfactory and denied safety valve relief; this was one factor in the sentence, which proceeded after considering all 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court misstate Garcia's safety valve eligibility? | Garcia argues due process requires independent, first-hand credibility determinations. | Government argues district court properly evaluated the proffer and Garcia failed to provide a complete, truthful account. | No error; district court did not clearly err in evaluating the proffer. |
| Did Garcia meet the truthfulness requirement for § 5C1.2(a)(5)? | Garcia contends he provided truthful information in the proffer sessions. | Government contends Garcia’s statements were incomplete and not fully truthful. | Garcia failed to meet the truthfulness requirement; safety valve relief denied. |
| Is Garcia's sentence substantively reasonable under abuse-of-discretion review? | Garcia argues the sentence was harsher due to adverse proffer considerations. | Garcia’s sentence is within the Guidelines range and presumptively reasonable. | Affirmed; sentence remains within the low end of the range and is substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 552 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.2009) (de novo review of § 5C1.2; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Deltoro-Aguilera v. United States, 625 F.3d 434 (8th Cir.2010) (safety valve requirements; a defendant's truthful information is required)
- United States v. Sanchez, 475 F.3d 978 (8th Cir.2007) (burden on defendant to show eligibility by preponderance)
- United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc: credibility of proffers; due process concerns about government assessment)
- United States v. Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d 970 (8th Cir.2008) (establishing safety valve requirements; defendant bears burden)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.2009) (abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness; en banc)
- United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir.2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Drake v. Scott, 812 F.2d 395 (8th Cir.1987) (en banc action to overrule prior panel holdings requires en banc court)