United States v. Francisco Marquez , 208 F. App'x 780 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 30, 2006
No. 06-11574 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00214-CR-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO MARQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 30, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Marquez appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment
imposed after Marquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methylenedioxymethamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Marquez argues
that the district court erroneously denied him a safety-valve reduction. U.S.S.G. §§
5C1.2, 2D1.1(b)(9). We affirm.
“When reviewing the denial of safety-valve relief, we review for clear error
a district court’s factual determinations. We review de novo the court’s legal
interpretation of the statutes and sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Johnson,
375 F.3d 1300, 1301 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Section 2D1.1(b)(9) of
the Sentencing Guidelines permits a two-level decrease of a defendant’s offense
level, if the defendant meets the five requirements of the safety-valve provision, 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5). The burden is on the defendant to establish that he has
satisfied all the requirements. Johnson, 375 F.3d at 1302.
The issue presented is whether Marquez satisfied the fifth requirement 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 . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). Marquez argues that
he satisfied this requirement because, before sentencing, he discussed with the
government all of the details that he had regarding the offense, except drug
2
quantity. He argues that he disclosed the drug quantity at sentencing when he
stipulated that the amount of drugs was 10,000 or more pills.
The district court denied the reduction because it found that Marquez had
never disclosed the quantity of pills involved in his offense, and the sentencing
transcript confirms this finding. Marquez did not disclose the quantity of pills
involved in his offense. When asked by the district court about the quantity,
Marquez declined to state the number of pills and chose to rely on his stipulation.
The district court did not clearly err when it denied the reduction.
Marquez’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3