United States v. Sanchez Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 16, 2023
• Docket: 23-50395
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

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.