USA v. Hector Talavera

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Hector Manuel Talavera. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10238

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10238
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cr-00167-PGB-KRS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HECTOR MANUEL TALAVERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 25, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10238

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Hector Manuel Talavera appeals his 60-month sentence after pleading guilty
to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(b)(1)(B). Talavera contends that the
district court clearly erred when it denied him a safety valve reduction and
sentenced him to the applicable statutory minimum. Specifically, he argues that
because he provided the government with a truthful and complete proffer of all the
information he knew regarding the offense, he was eligible for safety valve relief
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
A district court’s factual findings and subsequent denial of safety valve relief
are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir.
1997). For offenses of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, the safety valve provisions of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 enable a district court to disregard the
statutory minimum sentence if five requirements are met. Id.; U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a).
Relevant to this appeal, the fifth requirement for safety valve relief is that, by the
time of sentencing, the defendant must truthfully and completely provide the
government with all information the defendant has concerning the offense. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). The fact, however, that the defendant
does not have relevant or useful information, or that the defendant has information
that the government already knows, will not prevent the defendant from satisfying
this requirement. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). A defendant who seeks application of
2

Case: 16-10238

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 3 of 3

the safety valve bears the burden of proving the satisfaction of the requirements.
Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557.
A district court cannot apply the safety valve if it determines that the
defendant withheld information, even if the information would not have been
helpful to the government’s investigation. United States v. Figueroa, 199 F.3d
1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2000). Where the defendant’s charges include a drug
conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, a complete proffer under the safety valve
provision may include information “relating to the involvement of others and to the
chain of the narcotics distribution.” Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. Even if a defendant
claims ignorance as a justification for nondisclosure, substantial evidence to the
contrary will support a district court’s finding that the proffer does not meet the
requirement of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). See id.
The district court did not clearly err in denying Talavera a safety valve
reduction and declining to sentence him below the statutory minimum. It properly
found that Talavera withheld information from the government, making his presentencing proffer incomplete under the safety valve provisions of § 5C1.2.
AFFIRMED.

3