United States v. Torres-Santoni , 673 F. App'x 10 ( 2016 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-1585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
CARLOS A. TORRES-SANTONI,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, District of
Puerto Rico, Vivianne M. Marrero, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section, and Liza L. Rosado-
Rodriguez, Research and Writing Specialist, on brief for
appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana
E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, and Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 23, 2016
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Carlos Torres-Santoni
("Torres") appeals his sentence of 120 months' imprisonment for
conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. He argues
that the district court erred in denying him a safety-valve
adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
However, Torres's plea agreement makes clear that he is eligible
for safety-valve relief only if he fully complied with the
statutory safety-valve requirements, and the record does not
support reversal of the district court's determination that Torres
failed to do so. Seeing no reason to vacate Torres's sentence on
the grounds that he has presented, we affirm.
On January 20, 2015, Torres pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine into the
United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1),
and 960(b)(1)(B). He subsequently received the statutory minimum
sentence of 120 months' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. §§ 963 and
960(b)(1)(B). Torres's sole argument on appeal is that he was
entitled to a safety-valve adjustment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, which would have allowed the court to
sentence him based on a guidelines sentencing range of 87 to 108
months' imprisonment without regard to the 120-month minimum
sentence that would otherwise control.
The government's initial response to this argument is
that Torres's plea agreement contained a waiver of appeal that
- 2 -
bars him from challenging his sentence. The plea agreement states
as follows: "The defendant hereby agrees that if this Honorable
Court accepts this Plea Agreement and sentences him according to
its terms, conditions and recommendations, defendant waives and
surrenders his right to appeal the judgment and sentence in this
case." A supplement to the plea agreement further states that
"the Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment below any
statutory minimum term only if the defendant fully complies with
all the requirements of the safety-valve provisions."
The parties disagree as to how this language bears on
Torres's ability to appeal the district court's decision that he
did not satisfy those requirements. Rather than resolving this
disagreement, however, we affirm the sentence on the grounds that,
even if the waiver were not to apply, Torres's appeal would fail
on its merits. See, e.g., United States v. Sánchez-Maldonado, 737
F.3d 826, 827–28 (1st Cir. 2013) ("When the resolution of the
underlying appeal plainly dictates affirmance, we often have
elected to avoid the murky waters surrounding the waiver's scope
and proceeded to consider the merits of the appeal on the arguendo
assumption that the waiver does not apply.").
First, we reject Torres's argument that the district
court simply accepted the government's position that the safety-
valve requirements were not met rather than making that
determination on its own. Torres is correct that the district
- 3 -
court initially implied that it might defer to the government's
assessment. The record also makes clear, though, that the district
court did ultimately exercise its own "authority and discretion,
independent of the prosecutor's recommendation, to grant safety
valve relief." See United States v. Valenzuela-Sanchez, 245 F.
App'x 678, 680 (9th Cir. 2007) (memorandum opinion). The court
suggested at sentencing that "a reasonable person could reach the
conclusion under [the documents the government put forth] that
[Torres] did not comply with the safety valve," and further
expressed its view that defense counsel's statement that Torres
"was not comfortable talking about others" constituted "the end of
the story" on the safety valve. Additionally, in denying Torres's
motion for reconsideration,1 the district court explicitly stated
that it was "aware that it has the final word" on safety-valve
relief, and that "it is evident that the government failed to
recommend the adjustment because the defendant refused to talk
about other people" involved in the same conspiracy. On this
record, we cannot find support for Torres's contention that the
district court failed to make its own assessment of the evidence.
Second, we also find ourselves unpersuaded by Torres's
alternative argument that the evidence provides insufficient
factual support for the finding that he did not satisfy the five
1 Torres's motion advanced the same legal argument he advances
here.
- 4 -
safety-valve requirements. One of the requirements that Torres
must have satisfied to receive safety-valve relief is that he
"truthfully provide[] to the Government all information and
evidence [he] ha[d] concerning the offense or offenses that were
part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan."
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). The record, which we have independently
reviewed, supports the district court's factual determinations
that Torres was not forthcoming when responding to questions about
other individuals allegedly involved in the same conspiracy and
was otherwise not truthful about his own role in the drug-
trafficking enterprise. Thus, the district court did not clearly
err in concluding that Torres failed to qualify for safety-valve
relief. See, e.g., United States v. Padilla-Colón, 578 F.3d 23,
29 (1st Cir. 2009) ("We review for clear error safety-valve
determinations to the extent they depend on findings of fact.").
Because the district court committed neither legal nor
factual error in denying Torres the safety-valve adjustment, we
affirm the sentence imposed below.
- 5 -