|
|
|
| Safety Valve |
|
United States v. Stephenson,
No. 05-3165 (10th Cir., June 29, 2006) (Published): 1. Searches and Seizures; Traffic Stops; 2. Federal Sentencing Guidelines; "Safety Valve": A Kansas trooper stopped a truck based only upon what he observed to be modifications of the truck bed that would likely house a hidden compartment that may contain contraband. That was the sole basis for the stop. The trooper did not observe any traffic violation. Based upon this observation, he stopped the truck and called a drug dog which alerted. HELD: AFFIRMED. The panel held that the trooper's observations constituted sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the truck. Ugh. There is something terribly wrong in the courts when they allow this sort of thing. Concerning the "safety valve" provision, the panel clarified that it is the responsibility of the accused to proffer everything he knows to the government, rather than the responsibility of the government to accord the accused the opportunity to divulge what he knows.
|
|
|
United States v. Quirante,
No. 06-13527 (11th Cir., May 21, 2007): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Safety Valve: The Eleventh Circuit, in accord with the Second and Ninth Circuits, holds that the application of the "safety valve" is mandatory in federal sentencing calculations, not discretionary. As the court put it, the District Court erred in believing that the safety valve provision is "precatory not mandatory, a suggestion not a command."
|
|
|
United States v. Altamirano-Quintero,
No. 06-1254 (10th Cir., December 28, 2007) (Published): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Safety Valve: Altamirano-Quintero was convicted of drug conspiracy and sentenced to the mandatory minimum of ten years. In this appeal, he argued that the District Court should have applied the "safety valve" and sentenced him to a lesser term. The panel disagreed and affirmed, upholding the determination of the District Court that he was not eligible for the safety valve reduction because he had not provided to the Government all the information he had concerning his offense. NOTE: Judge Holmes (formerly of the U.S. Attorney's Office here in OKC) penned an interesting concurrence, taking the majority to task for failing to recognize that Altamirano-Quintero could have reasonably believed that the Government conceded in the written plea agreement that he met the safety valve conditions, but concluding ultimately that there was no reversible error.
|
|
|
|
United States v. Cervantes
No. 06-4172 (10th Cir., March 24, 2008) (Published): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Safety Valve: Cervantes plead guilty to one count of Possession of Meth with Intent to Distribute and was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 120 months. He appealed the District Court's denial of his request for a "safety valve" adjustment. AFFIRMED because Cervantes failed to satisfy his burden of showing the District Court that he had provided complete and accurate information to the Government.
|
|
|
|
