US v. Torres-Santoni
Filing
OPINION issued by Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge and William J. Kayatta , Jr., Appellate Judge. Unpublished. [15-1585]
Case: 15-1585
Document: 00117097301
Page: 1
Date Filed: 12/23/2016
Entry ID: 6057524
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-1585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
CARLOS A. TORRES-SANTONI,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, District of
Puerto Rico, Vivianne M. Marrero, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section, and Liza L. RosadoRodriguez, Research and Writing Specialist, on brief for
appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana
E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, and Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 23, 2016
Case: 15-1585
Document: 00117097301
KAYATTA,
Page: 2
Circuit
Date Filed: 12/23/2016
Judge.
Carlos
Entry ID: 6057524
Torres-Santoni
("Torres") appeals his sentence of 120 months' imprisonment for
conspiring to import cocaine into the United States.
He argues
that the district court erred in denying him a safety-valve
adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
However, Torres's plea agreement makes clear that he is eligible
for
safety-valve
statutory
relief
safety-valve
only
if
he
requirements,
fully
and
complied
the
record
with
the
does
not
support reversal of the district court's determination that Torres
failed to do so.
Seeing no reason to vacate Torres's sentence on
the grounds that he has presented, we affirm.
On January 20, 2015, Torres pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine into the
United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1),
and 960(b)(1)(B).
He subsequently received the statutory minimum
sentence of 120 months' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. §§ 963 and
960(b)(1)(B).
Torres's sole argument on appeal is that he was
entitled to a safety-valve adjustment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, which would have allowed the court to
sentence him based on a guidelines sentencing range of 87 to 108
months'
imprisonment
without
regard
to
the
120-month
minimum
sentence that would otherwise control.
The government's initial response to this argument is
that Torres's plea agreement contained a waiver of appeal that
- 2 -
Case: 15-1585
Document: 00117097301
Page: 3
Date Filed: 12/23/2016
bars him from challenging his sentence.
as follows:
Entry ID: 6057524
The plea agreement states
"The defendant hereby agrees that if this Honorable
Court accepts this Plea Agreement and sentences him according to
its terms, conditions and recommendations, defendant waives and
surrenders his right to appeal the judgment and sentence in this
case."
"the
A supplement to the plea agreement further states that
Court
may
impose
a
sentence
of
imprisonment
below
any
statutory minimum term only if the defendant fully complies with
all the requirements of the safety-valve provisions."
The parties disagree as to how this language bears on
Torres's ability to appeal the district court's decision that he
did not satisfy those requirements.
Rather than resolving this
disagreement, however, we affirm the sentence on the grounds that,
even if the waiver were not to apply, Torres's appeal would fail
on its merits.
See, e.g., United States v. Sánchez-Maldonado, 737
F.3d 826, 827–28 (1st Cir. 2013) ("When the resolution of the
underlying
appeal
plainly
dictates
affirmance,
we
often
have
elected to avoid the murky waters surrounding the waiver's scope
and proceeded to consider the merits of the appeal on the arguendo
assumption that the waiver does not apply.").
First, we reject Torres's argument that the district
court simply accepted the government's position that the safetyvalve
requirements
were
determination on its own.
not
met
rather
than
making
that
Torres is correct that the district
- 3 -
Case: 15-1585
Document: 00117097301
Page: 4
Date Filed: 12/23/2016
Entry ID: 6057524
court initially implied that it might defer to the government's
assessment. The record also makes clear, though, that the district
court did ultimately exercise its own "authority and discretion,
independent of the prosecutor's recommendation, to grant safety
valve relief."
See United States v. Valenzuela-Sanchez, 245 F.
App'x 678, 680 (9th Cir. 2007) (memorandum opinion).
The court
suggested at sentencing that "a reasonable person could reach the
conclusion under [the documents the government put forth] that
[Torres] did not comply with the safety valve," and further
expressed its view that defense counsel's statement that Torres
"was not comfortable talking about others" constituted "the end of
the story" on the safety valve.
Additionally, in denying Torres's
motion for reconsideration,1 the district court explicitly stated
that it was "aware that it has the final word" on safety-valve
relief, and that "it is evident that the government failed to
recommend the adjustment because the defendant refused to talk
about other people" involved in the same conspiracy.
On this
record, we cannot find support for Torres's contention that the
district court failed to make its own assessment of the evidence.
Second, we also find ourselves unpersuaded by Torres's
alternative
argument
that
the
evidence
provides
insufficient
factual support for the finding that he did not satisfy the five
1
Torres's motion advanced the same legal argument he advances
here.
- 4 -
Case: 15-1585
Document: 00117097301
Page: 5
safety-valve requirements.
Date Filed: 12/23/2016
Entry ID: 6057524
One of the requirements that Torres
must have satisfied to receive safety-valve relief is that he
"truthfully
provide[]
to
the
Government
all
information
and
evidence [he] ha[d] 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).
The record, which we have independently
reviewed, supports the district court's factual determinations
that Torres was not forthcoming when responding to questions about
other individuals allegedly involved in the same conspiracy and
was
otherwise
not
truthful
trafficking enterprise.
about
his
own
role
in
the
drug-
Thus, the district court did not clearly
err in concluding that Torres failed to qualify for safety-valve
relief.
See, e.g., United States v. Padilla-Colón, 578 F.3d 23,
29 (1st Cir. 2009) ("We review for clear error safety-valve
determinations to the extent they depend on findings of fact.").
Because the district court committed neither legal nor
factual error in denying Torres the safety-valve adjustment, we
affirm the sentence imposed below.
- 5 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?