FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 12, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 07-4000
v. (D.C. No. 2:05-CR-00692-DAK)
(D. Utah)
JOSE D. M AR TINEZ-M AR TINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before BR ISC OE, EBEL, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jose D. M artinez-M artinez pled guilty to distribution of at least
50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This
conviction subjected the Defendant to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of
120 months. 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). In the plea agreement however, the
Government agreed to recommend the application of the U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 safety
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G ). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
valve provision if the Defendant “truthfully provided . . . all information and
evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). The
safety valve provision would have allowed the district court to impose a sentence
below the statutory mandatory minimum.
After the Defendant refused to debrief the G overnment, the district court
accepted the Defendant’s post-M iranda statements to the arresting officers in
satisfaction of § 5C1.2(a)(5). During the sentencing hearing however, the
Defendant addressed the court and disavowed his post-arrest statements. After
the district court verified that the Defendant understood that his denial w ould
make him ineligible for the safety valve exception, the court imposed the
statutory minimum sentence of 120 months.
On appeal, counsel for the Defendant filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which presented the Defendant’s challenge to the
district court’s refusal to impose a sentence pursuant to § 5C1.2. In addition,
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel. Neither the
Defendant nor the Government filed a brief responding to Counsel’s Anders brief.
W e have independently reviewed the record as required by Anders, 386 U.S. at
744. Based on that review, we find that the district court did not err by denying
Defendant the § 5C1.2 safety valve exception and that the record presents no
additional non-frivolous issues.
-2-
W e review the district court’s decision regarding the Defendant’s eligibility
for § 5C1.2 for clear error. See United States v. Roman-Zarate, 115 F.3d 778,
784 (10th Cir. 1997). Thus, we will reverse the district court only if its decision
was “without factual support in the record,” or if after our review of the record,
“we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1182 (10th Cir. 1990). The Defendant
bears the burden of showing— by a preponderance of the evidence— the
applicability of § 5C1.2. United States v. Verners, 103 F.3d 108, 110 (10th Cir.
1996).
If the Defendant satisfies five criteria, § 5C1.2 allows district courts to
impose a sentence pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, rather than a longer
statutory mandatory minimum sentence. 1 U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. In this case, only the
fifth criterion is in dispute. The record indicates that the Defendant refused to
1
The criteria require:
(1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history
point . . . ;
(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence
or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon . . . in connection
with the offense;
(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury . . . ;
(4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor of others in the offense . . . and was not engaged in a
continuing criminal enterprise . . . ; and
(5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant
has truthfully provided to the Government all information and
evidence the defendant has concern the offense . . . .
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2
-3-
debrief the Government and disavowed his statements to the arresting officers.
Thus, we find that the factual record supports the district court’s decision to deny
the Defendant the safety valve exception and that therefore, it was not clear error
for the court to refuse to apply § 5C1.2. See Beaulieu, 893 F.2d at 1182. The
Defendant’s sentence is A FFIRM ED and we GRANT Counsel’s motion to
w ithdraw .
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M . Ebel
Circuit Judge
-4-