US v. Demario Brown
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00553-RDB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000359169]. [17-4472]
Appeal: 17-4472
Doc: 76
Filed: 08/31/2018
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4472
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMARIO LAMAR BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00553-RDB-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2018
Decided: August 31, 2018
Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Christina A. Hoffman, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-4472
Doc: 76
Filed: 08/31/2018
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Demario Lamar Brown appeals from his 60-month sentence, imposed pursuant to a
jury verdict convicting him of a heroin conspiracy. On appeal, Brown challenges the
district court’s finding that he was ineligible for the sentencing safety valve provision in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2012). We affirm.
Application of the safety valve under § 3553(f) is a question of fact that we review
for clear error. United States v. Henry, 673 F.3d 285, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). “This standard
of review permits reversal only if [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting such
a review, we afford “the district court’s credibility determinations great deference.” Id.
To be eligible for relief under the safety valve provision, a defendant must show the
following five elements:
(1) the defendant does not have more than one criminal history point; (2) the
defendant did not use violence or possess a firearm in connection with the
offense; (3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury; (4)
the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others
in the offense; and (5) no later than the time of sentencing, the defendant
truthfully provided the government with all evidence and information the
defendant had concerning the offense or offenses comprising the same course
of conduct or a common scheme or plan.
Id. at 292-93 (noting that the safety valve “requires broad disclosure from the defendant”);
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The burden of proof lies with the defendant to show that he has met
each element. United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 607 (4th Cir. 2012). The parties
agreed that the first four prongs of the safety valve requirement were met, but disputed
whether Brown has satisfied the fifth requirement.
2
Appeal: 17-4472
Doc: 76
Filed: 08/31/2018
Pg: 3 of 3
We find that the district court did not clearly err in finding Brown’s trial testimony
not credible.
Brown’s testimony denying any involvement in drug trafficking was
contradicted by his earlier statements, the testimony at trial concerning the searches of his
house and car, the testimony at trial regarding his coded text messages, and the jury’s
verdict. The district court’s justification for finding Brown not credible does not leave this
court “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See
Henry, 673 F.3d at 292. Thus, the district court did not err in finding Brown ineligible for
the safety valve provision.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
AFFIRMED
3
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?