United States v. Gerardo Antonio Sanchez-Leyva ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 17-11246    Date Filed: 12/14/2017   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 17-11246
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cr-00032-GAP-TBS-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GERARDO ANTONIO SANCHEZ-LEYVA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (December 14, 2017)
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 17-11246     Date Filed: 12/14/2017   Page: 2 of 5
    Gerardo Sanchez-Leyva appeals his 120-month statutory minimum sentence,
    based on the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
    The district court found that Mr. Sanchez-Leyva did not provide the government
    with complete and truthful information regarding his offenses and relevant
    conduct.
    I
    Mr. Sanchez-Leyva pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to
    distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to
    distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
    841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 21 U.S.C. § 846. Mr. Sanchez-
    Leyva lodged four objections to the PSI, including the lack of application of a two-
    level reduction based on the safety-valve provision in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
    At the sentencing hearing, neither party objected to the factual content of the
    PSI. Mr. Sanchez-Leyva argued, however, that his statements at the safety-valve
    interview regarding the methamphetamine conspiracy were true, and that he
    therefore warranted safety-valve relief.     The government countered that Mr.
    Sanchez-Leyva did not qualify for the safety-valve reduction because he had not
    been truthful in his proffer. After hearing testimony from FBI and DEA agents
    involved with the investigation, the district court sided with the government:
    I think the Government has met its burden of showing that the
    Defendant was not entirely truthful with it in several respects
    2
    Case: 17-11246     Date Filed: 12/14/2017   Page: 3 of 5
    concerning the incident in Georgia in 2013, which appears to be part
    of the same course of conduct or scheme or plan to traffic in illegal
    substances, as well as the delivery of the marijuana, which is
    unexplained and appears to be fabricated, his explanation for that. So
    it’s my determination the Defendant is not entitled to safety valve.
    D.E. 122 at 42.
    II
    In assessing a district court’s denial of safety-valve relief, we review
    findings of fact for clear error and the application of sentencing guidelines to those
    facts de novo. See United States v. Milkintas, 
    470 F.3d 1339
    , 1343 (11th Cir.
    2006).
    III
    For certain offenses, including 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, a district court
    imposes a sentence without regard to the applicable statutory minimum if five
    requirements are met. See 
    id. at 1344-45;
    18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. §
    5C1.2(a). The defendant bears the burden of showing that he meets all five
    criteria. See United States v. Johnson, 
    375 F.3d 1300
    , 1302 (11th Cir. 2004). The
    fifth and last criterion requires the defendant to show that “not later than the time
    of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government
    all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses
    that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan . . . .”
    U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).       According to the application notes accompanying §
    3
    Case: 17-11246   Date Filed: 12/14/2017   Page: 4 of 5
    5C1.2, “‘offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a
    common scheme or plan,’ as used in subsection (a)(5), mean the offense of
    conviction and all relevant conduct.” § 5C1.2 cmt. n.3. Thus, the offense of
    conviction and associated relevant conduct determine the scope of information
    which the defendant must disclose. See 
    Johnson, 375 F.3d at 1302
    . A defendant
    must “come forward and to supply truthfully to the government all the information
    that he possesses about his involvement in the offense, including information
    relating to the involvement of others and to the chain of the narcotics distribution.”
    United States v. Cruz, 
    106 F.3d 1553
    , 1557 (11th Cir. 1997).
    Because Mr. Sanchez-Leyva was convicted of offenses related to the
    distribution of methamphetamine, he was required to disclose all information and
    conduct relevant to those offenses. See 
    Johnson, 375 F.3d at 1302
    . Mr. Sanchez-
    Leyva did provide the government some information relevant to his offenses of
    conviction, but the information he provided was incomplete and, in some ways,
    inconsistent.
    For example, Mr. Sanchez-Leyva helped provide information about his
    methamphetamine source by setting up a controlled buy at the government’s
    direction. But when questioned about his drug source related to an Atlanta cocaine
    charge from 2013, later dropped arguably due to jurisdictional issues, Mr.
    Sanchez-Leyva claimed he had nothing to do with the drugs, despite DEA agents
    4
    Case: 17-11246     Date Filed: 12/14/2017    Page: 5 of 5
    having observed Mr. Sanchez-Leyva personally handle backpacks containing
    fifteen kilograms of cocaine. The district court also took issue with Mr. Sanchez-
    Leyva’s conflicting explanations for the arrival of a package containing six cans of
    marijuana at his house one day after he was arrested. The package had been sent
    before the arrest, yet Mr. Sanchez-Leyva first claimed the marijuana arrived as a
    result of his government-induced controlled buy of methamphetamine. When
    confronted with the fact that the package was sent before he began “helping” the
    government identify his source in California, Mr. Sanchez-Leyva then claimed he
    had no idea why he received such a package from that distributor.
    IV
    Because the record shows numerous ways in which Mr. Sanchez-Leyva
    failed to provide complete truthful information, the district court did not clearly err
    in concluding that he was untruthful regarding aspects surrounding the charged
    methamphetamine offenses, and that he did not warrant safety valve relief.
    AFFIRMED.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-11246

Filed Date: 12/14/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021