United States v. Giezi Magno Zamora

668 F. App'x 871

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 8, 2016
• Docket: 15-13136 Non-Argument Calendar
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Giezi Magno Zamora appeals his 120-month sentence for possessing with intent to distribute, and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine aboard a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C.. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a) & (b), and penalized pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(l)(B)(ii). On appeal, Zamora argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction, or an even greater minimal role reduction, because of his menial participation as a deckhand- in a cocaine smuggling venture.

Even assuming; however, that the district court erred in refusing to grant Zamora’s request for a minor role reduction, any such error was harmless because Zamora’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment is already at the statutory mandatory minimum. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70506(a) & (b); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)®. “It is well-settled that a district court is not authorized to sentence a defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum unless the government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G, § 5K1.1 or the defendant falls within the safety-valve of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).” United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008). The government did not file a substantial assistance motion here. Zamora’s convictions also do not qualify for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). See United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz, 679 F.3d 1327, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that safety valve relief does not apply to violations of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a) & (b)). Thus, because Zamora is already serving a mandatory minimum sentence and does not qualify for a sentence below that minimum, any error in the district court’s denial of his request for a minor role reduction was harmless and we need not address it. See United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.