United States v. Nunez
627 F.3d 274
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Nunez pled guilty to possessing over 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute and received a sixty-month sentence, the mandatory minimum, after the district court found him ineligible for a safety valve adjustment.
- Evidence at sentencing included hearsay from confidential informants CI-1 and CI-2 regarding Nunez's involvement and statements about his co-defendants and customers.
- Prior to sentencing, the PSR indicated Nunez qualified for a safety valve adjustment, but the government objected, arguing he did not truthfully provide information as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
- Nunez debriefed with agents; he disclosed background information but limited discussion of customers and co-defendants, notably denying Garza's and Schram's involvement beyond some generalities.
- Two confidential informants provided additional accounts: CI-1 offered detailed assertions about the Omega sale and others’ involvement, while CI-2 corroborated minimal details to the extent relevant to the record.
- At sentencing, the district court relied on these sources to conclude Nunez failed the fifth safety valve requirement and thus was not eligible for below-minimum sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court relied on unreliable information for safety valve | Nunez argues hearsay from CI-1 was unreliable and improperly used at sentencing. | Nunez contends reliability required corroboration or disclosure of CI-1’s identity, which was lacking. | No reversible error; hearsay with indicia of reliability and corroboration may be used. |
| Whether CI-1's statements were sufficiently reliable | Citations and corroboration support reliability of CI-1's statements. | CI-1’s unreliability or lack of corroboration invalidates use at sentencing. | CI-1's statements had corroboration and were properly considered; any error was harmless. |
| Whether the district court adequately weighed reliability factors for CI-1 | Court considered arguments on reliability and did not abuse discretion. | Court failed to provide a thorough, explicit weighing of CI-1's reliability. | Discretion exercised; any lack of detailed reasoning was harmless error. |
| Whether Nunez's second debriefing limits obligated full disclosure under §3553(f)(5) | Limits shown by Nunez on second debriefing demonstrate failure to provide ‘all information.’ | Limitation alone suffices to show ineligibility; not a due process violation. | District court properly relied on limits of second debriefing to deny safety valve eligibility. |
| Whether PSR results and government challenge shift burden at sentencing | PSR initially showing eligibility should not be dispositive; government bears burden when challenged. | Defendant bears burden to prove safety valve eligibility and government evidence suffices. | Burden remains with defendant; government evidence can defeat eligibility where appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Corson, 579 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2009) (clear-error review of safety valve; reliability indicators needed)
- United States v. Sanchez, 507 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2007) (reliability in sentencing relies on indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Hollins, 498 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007) (reliability considerations for hearsay at sentencing)
- United States v. Lechner, 341 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2003) (due process standard for reliance on information at sentencing)
- United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2005) (reliability considerations of evidence at sentencing)
- United States v. Maiden, 606 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2010) (sits on reliability and corroboration at sentencing)
- United States v. Are, 590 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error approach to reliance on hearsay)
- United States v. Morrison, 207 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2000) (crediting hearsay evidence at sentencing when corroborated)
- United States v. Martinez, 301 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2002) (cooperation requirement under §3553(f)(5))
- United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1996) (defendant bears burden to prove safety valve eligibility)
- United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1996) (scope of cooperation necessary for safety valve analysis)
- United States v. Montes, 381 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2004) (fifth safety valve requirement; disclosure of information)