United States v. Sanchez Rodriguez ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50395 Document: 00516970141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50395
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 16, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jorge Luis Sanchez Rodriguez, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CR-113-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant Jorge Luis Sanchez Rodriguez, Jr. pleaded
guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s written
judgment and its denial of a sentence reduction under the safety-valve
provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. To qualify for safety-valve relief, he
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50395 Document: 00516970141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2023
No. 23-50395
has the burden of establishing eligibility for such a reduction, including
showing that he timely and truthfully provided the government with all
relevant information and evidence concerning the offense. U.S.S.G.
§ 5C1.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143,
146-47 (5th Cir. 1996).
This court reviews the district court’s decision whether to apply the
safety valve for clear error and its interpretation of the guideline de novo.
Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 145. “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is
plausible, considering the record as a whole.” United States v. King, 773 F.3d
48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Sanchez Rodriguez contends that he provided a complete and truthful
account of his offense and relevant conduct during his initial interview and
therefore satisfied his obligation under § 5C1.2(a)(5). However, his PSR
notes that he was “deceptive and vague” during his interview and that “his
story kept changing.” ROA.272-73. This court affirms the denial of safety-
valve reductions when the defendant has made inconsistent statements to law
enforcement or to the sentencing court. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, 65
F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gonzalez-Compean, 179 F.
App’x 904, 905 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Such behavior does not meet
the guideline’s requirement of “truthfully provid[ing] . . . all information and
evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.” § 5C1.2(a)(5)
(emphasis added).
Sanchez Rodriguez complains that he tried to meet his burden by
requesting a debriefing with the government multiple times, but that he was
rebuffed. ROA.255. The government responds, claiming that it “is not
required to debrief anyone.” Id. It further notes that Sanchez Rodriguez did
not have to participate in a debrief to meet his burden, as he could have
provided everything he knew in the form of a proffer. ROA.256.
2
Case: 23-50395 Document: 00516970141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2023
No. 23-50395
In United States v. Flanagan, we held that the government need not
solicit safety-valve information via a debrief. 80 F.3d at 146. Instead, it is the
defendant’s burden to ensure that all information has been provided by the
time of sentencing. Id. at 146-47 (citation omitted). The facts here are slightly
different than those in Flanagan, as Sanchez Rodriguez did allegedly attempt
to debrief with the government. However, since Sanchez Rodriguez had
alternative avenues to meet his burden beyond seeking a debriefing, such as
offering a written proffer, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in
ruling that this burden was not met. See United States v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 882,
884 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Flanagan, 80 F.3d at 146) (holding that merely
“express[ing] a willingness to provide the required information” does not
meet a defendant’s burden); United States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1345-
46, 1346 n.4 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 763
(7th Cir. 1999)) (explaining that, without a truthful written proffer,
willingness to be debriefed does not “satisfy the disclosure requirement” of
the safety-valve provision).
Sanchez Rodriguez also contends that his written judgment failed to
conform to the district court’s orally pronounced sentence because it did not
specify that his federal sentence would run concurrently with any
subsequently imposed state sentence. See United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d
378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006) (discussing conflicting judgments). The government
is correct in responding that, because the state has formally declined to
prosecute Sanchez Rodriguez for his conduct, any challenge to this
discrepancy is moot. Victory on appeal would have no actual consequences
for him. See Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363-64 (1987).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3