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 Unpublished.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Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter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 -