« Is the right to counsel "violated every day ... in thousands of courtrooms across the nation"? | Main | "Pardons and the Theory of the 'Second Best'" »

March 25, 2013

Eleventh Circuit discusses key factor in application of federal safety valve

While on the road, I missed an intriguing lengthy Eleventh Circuit panel decision in US v. Carillo-Ayala, No. 11-14473 (11th Cir. Mar. 22, 2013) (available here), concerning the application of the safety-valve provision of federal law allowing sentencing below an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum.  Here is how the opinion gets started:

This case presents an issue of first impression in this Court concerning the “safety valve,” but one the trial judge noted is an all too frequent conundrum for a sentencing judge. When a defendant stands convicted of a drug offense carrying mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, the sentencing judge may impose a sentence below the other wise mandatory minimum terms if the defendant meets five criteria. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.  Only one of the five criteria is relevant here.  It requires the defendant to show that he “did not . . . possess a firearm . . . in connection with the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2).

Defendant Arturo Carillo-Ayala admits he was a drug dealer and admits he sold firearms, but his ostensible business plan was “Guns and Drugs Sold Separately.”  The question before us is whether a drug-dealer who also sells firearms to a drug customer possesses those firearms “in connection with” the charged drug offense.  The answer is “not necessarily.”

March 25, 2013 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017c381b7e51970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eleventh Circuit discusses key factor in application of federal safety valve:

Comments

At least this panel went on to answer the question (and correctly I believe) rather than send it back to the district judge for re-sentencing with the same outcome being the likely result.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Mar 26, 2013 12:41:05 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB