[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 18, 2006
No. 05-14052 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-80029-CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LARONN HOUSTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 18, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Laronn Houston appeals his five-year sentence on his plea of guilty to
charges of using a computer to attempt to persuade, induce, and entice a minor to
engage in sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Houston argues that the
district court should have applied the “safety valve” to sentence Houston below the
statutory minimum and that his five-year sentence was not reasonable. We affirm.
Houston used an America Online chat room to contact the “mother” of a “14
year old girl” to attempt to set up a meeting with the girl to engage in sexual
activity with her. The “mother” and the “14 year old girl” were undercover police
officers. When Houston arrived at the rendezvous he arranged with the “mother,”
he was arrested. Houston pleaded guilty to using a computer to attempt to
persuade, induce, and entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. 18 U.S.C. §
2422(b).
The pre-sentence investigation report calculated Houston’s offense level at
20 with a recommended sentence of imprisonment of 33 to 41 months, but section
2422(b), imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of five years.
Houston argued that the court should apply the “safety valve” to sentence him
below the statutory minimum, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), and an offense level reduction
for meeting the five criteria for sentencing below the statutory minimum, U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(6). The district court overruled Houston’s objections and sentenced
him to the statutory minimum of five years of imprisonment.
2
We review interpretations of the sentencing guidelines de novo. United
States v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir. 2003). Houston’s argument that he
satisfied all five requirements of the “safety valve” provision of the Sentencing
Guidelines fails. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). The “safety valve”
applies to sentences imposed for crimes committed under five enumerated
provisions of Title 21 of the U.S. Code. The selection of these five provisions by
Congress reflects its intent to exclude all other crimes from this “safety valve.”
United States v. Anderson, 200 F.3d 1344, 1348 (11th Cir. 2000). Because
Houston was not convicted under any of the five enumerated provisions, the
“safety valve” does not apply.
Houston also erroneously argues that he should have received a two-level
offense reduction, under section 2D1.1(b)(6), and that the failure to apply the two-
level reduction renders his sentence unreasonable under United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Houston’s argument fails for two reasons.
First, section 2D1.1(b)(6) applies only to drug offenses. Second, Booker did not
affect statutory minimums. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1333 n.10
(11th Cir. 2005).
Houston’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3