United States v. Jasso
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3150
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jasso pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846; minimum sentence 120 months applies.
- The Presentence Report calculated a range of 97–121 months; the ten-year statutory minimum effectively raised the range to 120–121 months.
- Jasso had two criminal history points for illegal reentry, which would preclude safety-valve relief under §3553(f) and U.S.S.G. §5C1.2 before any downward variances.
- The district court reduced Jasso’s criminal history to one point and sought safety-valve relief, delaying sentencing to pursue §3553(f)(5) participation.
- At the resumed sentencing, the court imposed a 70-month sentence with five years of supervised release, below the statutory minimum, and found safety-valve relief justified; the Government timely appealed.
- The Government contends the court lacked authority to depart below the minimum because Jasso’s two points precluded safety-valve relief; the court vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two CH points preclude safety valve relief. | Jasso's two points made him ineligible for §3553(f) safety valve relief. | Court could consider safety valve relief by reducing CH points. | No; two CH points render safety valve relief inapplicable; district court erred. |
| Whether Booker allows advisory treatment of §3553(f)(1) preconditions. | Booker renders §3553(f)(1) advisory for CH points. | Booker does not render preconditions advisory. | Booker does not impair the preconditions for safety-valve relief. |
| Whether the 2003 §5C1.2 amendment was valid. | Amendment improperly delegates authority. | Amendment valid; Commission authority intact. | Constitutionality of the amendment upheld; not a nondelegation problem. |
| District court’s authority under 4A1.3 to adjust CH points. | Court may adjust CH points to permit safety valve. | Court cannot alter points; only depart range. | §4A1.3 does not authorize altering CH points; must follow guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valencia-Andrade, 72 F.3d 770 (9th Cir.1995) (safety valve requires not more than one CH point before variances)
- United States v. Penn, 282 F.3d 879 (6th Cir.2002) (§4A1.3 only allows departure from guideline range, not changing CH points)
- United States v. Tanner, 544 F.3d 793 (7th Cir.2008) (Booker does not render §3553(f)(1) advisory for safety valve)
- United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582 (6th Cir.2008) (similar holding on safety valve preconditions post-Booker)
- United States v. Leon-Alvarez, 532 F.3d 815 (8th Cir.2008) (reaffirmed limits on advisory nature of safety valve preconditions)
- United States v. Hunt, 503 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.2007) (Booker does not erode preconditions to safety valve relief)
- United States v. Hernandez-Castro, 473 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2007) (limitations on safety valve eligibility based on CH points)
- United States v. McKoy, 452 F.3d 234 (3d Cir.2006) (preconditions for safety valve applicability)
- United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.2006) (safety valve framework post-Booker)
- United States v. Barrero, 425 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.2005) (safety valve constraints preconditions)
- United States v. Payton, 405 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir.2005) (safety valve eligibility criteria)