United States v. Valentino Dewitt Edgecombe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 22-11761
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 22-11761 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11761 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VALENTINO DEWITT EDGECOMBE,

Defendant-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20519-DPG-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11761 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11761

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Valentino Edgecombe appeals his 60-month sentence for controlled substance convictions. First, although he did not move for it below, Mr. Edgecombe argues that the district court erred when it failed to continue his sentencing hearing. Second, Mr. Edgecombe contends the district court erred when it refused to question him under seal. Had the court done so, according to Mr. Edgecombe, it would have properly found he qualified for a sen- tence below the 60-month mandatory minimum pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)’s safety valve. As an initial matter, Mr. Edgecombe made no argument on appeal that the district court committed legal or factual error in its determination that he was not eligible for safety-valve relief. His sole arguments on appeal concern alleged procedural errors. I. Continuation of Sentencing Hearing When an appellant contends the court should have exer- cised its authority to sua sponte continue the trial, we review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889, 914 (11th Cir. 2020). The defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the decision was an abuse of discretion and that it produced specific, substantial prejudice. See id. To establish specific preju- dice, the defendant “must identify relevant, non-cumulative USCA11 Case: 22-11761 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2023 Page: 3 of 4

22-11761 Opinion of the Court 3

evidence” he would have presented had a continuance been granted. United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 708 (11th Cir. 1993). Here, Mr. Edgecombe has failed to identify specific evidence that he would have presented had he received a continuance. In- stead, Mr. Edgecombe generally alleges he would have proven his truthful cooperation to satisfy the safety valve exception. Further, the district court had already cast doubt upon Mr. Edgecombe’s ability to prove his veracity when it stated: “The problem here is [Edgecombe] provided inconsistent statements and it is really an untenable task for me to now figure out, how under these circum- stances what is truthful based on what he might say today.” Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion to not continue the hearing. II. Sealed Record We review whether to seal portions of the record for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1238 n. 25 (11th Cir. 2012). Courts have discretion to determine which as- pects of the record should be sealed, but that discretion is guided by the presumption of openness. Id. at 1238–39. To overcome the presumption of openness and justify clos- ing the courtroom to the public during a criminal proceeding, four elements must be satisfied: (1) the party seeking to close the pro- ceedings “must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable USCA11 Case: 22-11761 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2023 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11761

alternatives to closing the” proceeding; and (4) the trial court “must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984); United States v. Moon, 33 F.4th 1284, 1298 (11th Cir. 2022). Here, Mr. Edgecombe did not demonstrate that sealing the hearing was necessary to protect his safety or show an overriding interest to overcome the presumption of openness. Therefore, Mr. Edgecombe has failed to show that the district court abused its dis- cretion. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.