United States v. Jose Rios-Sanchez ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-1444
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jose Rios-Sanchez, also known as Jose Rios
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
    ____________
    Submitted: March 12, 2018
    Filed: July 16, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jose Rios-Sanchez agreed to transport drugs from Washington to Arkansas in
    exchange for $1,500.00. When Nebraska State Patrol officers stopped Rios-Sanchez
    for expired license plates, he consented to a vehicle search. While conducting the
    search, the officers discovered seven pounds of methamphetamine in a cooler inside
    the vehicle and 1.3 grams of methamphetamine in Rios-Sanchez’s sock. He pled
    guilty to possession with intent to deliver 500 grams or more of methamphetamine,
    in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1) and 841(b)(1). Rios-Sanchez failed to appear
    at his sentencing hearing scheduled for January 23, 2002. He evaded capture for over
    fourteen years before he was finally located living in Wyoming. The district court1
    sentenced Rios-Sanchez to a statutory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment.
    On appeal, Rios-Sanchez argues that the district court erred when it found that he
    failed to qualify for safety-valve relief. We affirm.
    I.    Background
    In 2001, Rios-Sanchez lived with his wife and children in Washington. In
    order to supplement his income, Rios-Sanchez agreed to deliver drugs to an
    individual in Arkansas at the request of his brother’s brother-in-law. He never made
    the delivery, as he was stopped by law enforcement officers in Nebraska for expired
    license plates. Rios-Sanchez consented to a search, which revealed seven pounds of
    methamphetamine in a cooler and 1.3 grams of methamphetamine in his sock.
    Rios-Sanchez pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver 500 grams or
    more of methamphetamine. He faced a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty. Rios-
    Sanchez fled the jurisdiction and did not appear for his sentencing hearing. He
    moved with his wife and children to Wyoming where he lived until he was located
    by law enforcement on October 11, 2016.
    A sentencing hearing was held on February 16, 2017, during which the district
    court determined that Rios-Sanchez was ineligible for relief under the safety-valve
    provisions of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (f) and United States Sentencing Guidelines §
    5C1.2(a) because Rios-Sanchez had failed to provide all information and evidence
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    -2-
    he had concerning the offense before his January 2002 sentencing hearing. In support
    of his motion for a minor role reduction, Rios-Sanchez testified at the February 2017
    sentencing hearing. He also provided a written safety-valve statement. The district
    court found that, while some of the testimony Rios-Sanchez provided had “a ring of
    truth to it,” other testimony about the circumstances of the offense simply was not
    credible.
    The court denied Rios-Sanchez’s motion for relief under the safety-valve and
    for a minor role adjustment. The district court found that Rios-Sanchez’s base
    offense level was 32, which was increased to level 34 because he obstructed justice.
    In criminal history category I, Rios-Sanchez’s applicable advisory guideline range
    was 151 to 188 months. The court granted a downward variance based on Rios-
    Sanchez’s physical condition and sentenced him to a term of 120 months’
    imprisonment to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.
    On appeal, Rios-Sanchez argues that the district court’s erroneous
    interpretation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (f) deprived him of the opportunity to be sentenced
    below the statutory minimum.
    II.   Discussion
    We review factual findings as to safety-valve eligibility for clear error and
    interpretation of the statutory safety-valve de novo. United States v. Ruacho, 
    746 F.3d 850
    , 853 (8th Cir. 2014). 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(f) allows a district court to impose
    a sentence below the statutory minimum sentence if the defendant satisfies five
    requirements. United States v. Delgrosso, 
    852 F.3d 821
    , 829 (8th Cir. 2017). The
    only requirement at issue is whether Rios-Sanchez satisfied the fifth requirement–that
    is “not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully
    provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has
    -3-
    concerning the offense or offenses.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).
    The government conceded that the district court erred in finding that Rios-
    Sanchez was ineligible for safety-valve relief because the information was not
    provided before the initial sentencing hearing. The error, however, was harmless.
    “We review for clear error a district court’s findings regarding the
    completeness and truthfulness of information provided by a defendant.” Delgrosso,
    852 F.3d at 829. The defendant bears the burden to show that he has satisfied each
    requirement for the safety valve. United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 
    412 F.3d 942
    ,
    947 (8th Cir. 2005). “Affirmance is required if the record supports the court’s
    findings, regardless of which party is favored.” 
    Id.
    Rios-Sanchez provided inconsistent statements regarding his involvement in
    the offense. He provided one version that he drove to the drug dealer’s house to pick
    up the drugs and another version where the drug dealer brought the drugs to his
    house. Rios-Sanchez did not provide specifics on when and where the delivery was
    supposed to take place. The district court found Rios-Sanchez’s explanation that the
    baggie of methamphetamine found in his sock was a sample for the drug dealer
    lacked credibility. After reviewing the entire record, we find there is sufficient
    evidence supporting the district court’s findings regarding the lack of completeness
    and truthfulness of Rios-Sanchez’s information about the offense.
    III.   Conclusion
    The district court’s error in finding Rios-Sanchez was ineligible for
    consideration under the safety valve was harmless. Rios-Sanchez’s written safety-
    valve statement and his testimony at the sentencing hearing demonstrate he did not
    truthfully proffer all information about his involvement in the offense and, therefore,
    -4-
    did not satisfy his burden of showing he was been entitled to relief under the safety
    valve. The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1444

Filed Date: 7/16/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/16/2018