US v. Cristino Medina
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00141-LCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999983679].. [15-4787]
Appeal: 15-4787
Doc: 34
Filed: 12/09/2016
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4787
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRISTINO PARRA MEDINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00141-LCB-1)
Submitted:
September 23, 2016
Decided:
December 9, 2016
Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Scott Coalter, COALTER LAW, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4787
Doc: 34
Filed: 12/09/2016
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Cristino
Parra
Medina
pled
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in prison.
On appeal, Medina contends that the district court improperly
denied him application of the safety valve.
We vacate Medina’s
sentence and remand for resentencing.
The
safety-valve
disregard
any
statute
statutory
requires
mandatory
sentencing
minimum
courts
sentence
defendant who establishes that he meets five criteria.
U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
to
for
a
See 18
These criteria include that
“the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point,
as
determined
3553(f)(1),
leader,
under
and
the
that
manager,
or
sentencing
“the
guidelines,”
defendant
supervisor
of
was
others
not
in
18
an
U.S.C.
§
organizer,
the
offense,
as
determined under the sentencing guidelines,” id. § 3553(f)(4).
Application
of
the
safety
valve
specific factors are present.
is
mandatory
where
the
five
United States v. Beltran-Ortiz,
91 F.3d 665, 667 n.1 (4th Cir. 1996).
The probation officer who prepared the presentence report
(PSR) in
history
offense
this
points,
case
determined
that
he
enhancement,
requirements
recommended
were
did
that
qualify
for
that
and
of
had
not
the
other
satisfied.
application
Medina
The
the
2
prepared
safety
valve
zero
a
criminal
role-in-thesafety-valve
PSR
and
therefore
calculated
Appeal: 15-4787
Doc: 34
Filed: 12/09/2016
Pg: 3 of 5
Medina’s Guidelines sentence without regard to the otherwiseapplicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
According to
the PSR, Medina’s advisory sentencing range was 87-108 months.
Counsel for Medina and the government agreed with the sentence
calculations and recommendations contained in the PSR.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court identified no
error in the PSR’s factual conclusions or sentence calculations,
but the court nonetheless expressed concern about applying the
safety-valve statute to Medina.
The court noted that, because
Medina was an illegal alien, he might have had prior criminal
activity outside of the United States.
The court also expressed
concern about Medina’s role in the offense, given his connection
to the leader of the conspiracy in Mexico.
In light of these concerns, the district court declined to
apply the safety valve.
aggravated
role
The court, however, did not impose an
enhancement
criminal history category.
and
did
not
increase
Medina’s
Instead, the court adopted the PSR
as written, with the exception of the safety-valve-related twolevel reduction in Medina’s total offense level.
See J.A. 252
(Statement of Reasons adopting PSR except for “[t]he two-level
reduction for safety valve[, which] does not apply based on the
fact the defendant was residing in the United States illegally
and there is no way to determine if he had any criminal history
in Mexico.
Therefore, the Total Offense Level is 31.”).
3
Appeal: 15-4787
Doc: 34
Filed: 12/09/2016
Pg: 4 of 5
Medina argues on appeal that the district court erred by
refusing to apply the safety valve.
We agree.
The district court concluded that, because of his status as
an illegal alien, Medina could not prove that he did not have
more than 1 criminal history point.
The safety-valve statute,
however, only requires that Medina prove he “does not have more
than
1
criminal
sentencing
history
point,
guidelines.”
18
as
U.S.C.
determined
§
added); accord U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1).
the
Guidelines
district
court
calculation
met
this
in
the
3553(f)(1)
the
(emphasis
It is undisputed that
PSR
requirement.
under
and
The
adopted
district
by
the
court’s
conclusion that there was potentially other criminal activity
outside of the United States is purely speculative, impossible
to disprove, and irrelevant to whether Medina had more than 1
criminal history point, as determined under the Guidelines.
As
to
Medina’s
role
in
the
offense,
the
statute
again
simply requires proof that “the defendant was not an organizer,
leader,
manager,
or
supervisor
of
others
in
determined under the sentencing guidelines.”
the
affirmatively
declined
to
apply
a
as
Id. § 3553(f)(4)
(emphasis added); accord U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(4).
court
offense,
The district
role-in-the-offense
enhancement to Medina, see J.A. 101-02, and the PSR as adopted
by the district court determined that Medina did not meet the
Guidelines’
requirements
for
such
4
an
enhancement.
Because
Appeal: 15-4787
Medina
Doc: 34
did
not
Filed: 12/09/2016
receive
a
Pg: 5 of 5
role-in-the-offense
satisfied the safety-valve requirements.
enhancement,
he
See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2
cmt. n.5 (“‘Organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others
in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines,’
as used in subsection (a)(4), means a defendant who receives an
adjustment for an aggravating role under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating
Role).” (emphasis added)).
We therefore conclude that the requirements of the safetyvalve statute were satisfied in this case, and that the district
court erred by refusing to apply the statute when sentencing
Medina.
Accordingly, we vacate Medina’s sentence and remand for
resentencing.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
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?