United States v. Jones , 388 F. App'x 319 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4444
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRUCE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00314-MBS-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2010 Decided: July 20, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM. L.L.C., North Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Jones pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and distribute more than 500 grams of
cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 946 (2006), and was sentenced to a term of
235 months imprisonment. Jones contends on appeal that the
district court erred in finding that he did not qualify for a
two-level safety valve reduction under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(11) (2006), because it failed to
make an explicit finding that he had not met the fifth criteria
set out in USSG § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). We affirm.
A defendant may have his base offense level reduced by
two levels under § 2D1.1(b)(11) if he meets all five criteria
set out in § 5C1.2(a). The fifth requirement is that, by the
time he is sentenced, he has “truthfully provided to the
Government all information and evidence [he] has concerning the
offense or offenses[.]” A defendant seeking the benefit of an
offense level reduction based on his compliance with § 5C1.2 and
§ 2D1.1(b)(11) has the burden of proving that he has satisfied
the criteria set out in § 5C1.2. United States v. Wilson, 114
F.3d 429, 432 (4th Cir. 1997). The district court’s
determination that a defendant has fulfilled the requirements of
§ 5C1.2(a)(5) is a factual question that is reviewed for clear
error. Id.; United States v. Guerra-Cabrera, 477 F.3d 1021,
1024-25 (8th Cir. 2007).
2
Jones promised in his plea agreement that he would
provide to the government “full, complete and truthful
information about all criminal activities about which he has
knowledge.” When he was interviewed, Jones did provide
information, but he denied having any drug transactions with
Angus Jimmerson. At the sentencing hearing, Jimmerson testified
about his dealings with Jones over a period of seventeen years.
Jones proffered that no such transactions took place. The
district court accepted Jimmerson’s account and, based on his
testimony, attributed forty kilograms of cocaine to Jones. The
court found that Jones had not met the requirements for a safety
valve reduction, but did not state that he had failed to provide
complete and truthful information to the government.
We conclude that the court’s acceptance of Jimmerson’s
testimony as credible, and its consequent attribution of forty
kilograms of cocaine to Jones despite Jones’ proffer that he
never dealt with Jimmerson, was an implicit finding that Jones
had not truthfully provided to the government all the
information he had about the offense. Therefore, the district
court did not clearly err in finding that Jones had not met the
criteria for the safety valve reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4