Truthful Information for Reduced Sentences.
Whether someone provides “truthful information” to qualify for a reduced sentence under the safety valve is not up to the government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on August 21, 2020. U.S. v. Lima-Rivero, 19-10759 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2020).
After pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine, the defendant provided information to the government in an attempt for a lower sentence under the safety valve, which allows a court to go below a mandatory minimum sentence if a defendant meets several criteria.
One of those criteria is that the defendant must provide “all information and evidence [he has] concerning the offense” to the government. In this case, the DEA agent testified that the defendant was “less than forthcoming” and didn’t qualify for the safety valve. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the safety valve, reasoning that “I think it’s up to the government to determine if the defendant has complied” with the safety valve provision.
But the judge was wrong: it’s not up to the government at all. Under 18 U.S.C. s. 3553(f)(5), it is the court’s responsibility to determine all the criteria for the safety valve. The Fifth Circuit said that the agents testimony wasn’t even based on fact but only “mere speculation,” and returned the case to the district court to determine for itself whether the safety valve applied.
Recommended for you
Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions
At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…
Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends
Anthony Holman’s supervised release was revoked for failing to pay restitution and picking up a new charge. However, the violation petition was not submitted until after Holman’s term of supervision had already expired. No summons was pending at the time either. Generally, whenever a U.S. Probation Officer believes that a defendant has violated his or…
Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review
In Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), the Supreme Court held that “at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)…
