Case o' The Week: Ninth Turns Up Nose at State Action and Federal Sentences - Lizarraga-Carrizales and Safety Valve
“Lizarraga may have obtained the termination of his
probation in hope of affecting his sentence for the federal offense, thus
risking an odor of gaming the federal sentencing system.” United States v. Lizarraga-Carrizales, 2014 WL 2958614, *5 (9th
Cir. July 2, 2014), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge Callahan, joined
by Judges Trott and District Judge Bennett. Hard-fought appeal (following some
admirable pre-sentencing litigation) by AFD James Fife, Federal Defenders of
San Diego, Inc.
Facts: Lizarraga-Carrizales was caught on the border with 7 kilos
of heroin, and convicted of drug importation. Id. at *1. That triggered a ten-year mand-min under 21 U.S.C. §
960(b). Id.
The district court rejected his arguments for Safety Valve, finding him ineligible because he had too many criminal history points (five, instead of the maximum of one). Id.
The district court rejected his arguments for Safety Valve, finding him ineligible because he had too many criminal history points (five, instead of the maximum of one). Id.
Issue(s):
“Lizarraga claims that the district
court improperly engaged in judicial fact-finding in denying him safety valve
relief from the mandatory minimum sentence and misapplied the Sentencing
Guidelines.” Id. at *1. “Lizarraga’s
primary contention on appeal is that the facts underlying the safety valve
determination must be submitted to a jury under Apprendi . . . . and Alleyne
. . . . We have yet to decide in a published decision whether the safety valve
determination implicates Alleyne . . . .”
Id. at *2 (internal quotations and
citations omitted)..
Held: “We hold that
the safety valve determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) does not implicate Alleyne v. United States . . . 133 S. Ct. 2151 . . . (2013), because it
does not increase the statutory minimum sentence.” Id. at *1. “We agree with the First Circuit that the denial of
safety valve relief does not increase the statutory maximum or minimum such
that Alleyne is implicated . . . .
Accordingly, the factual predicate for denying safety valve relief need not be
proven to a jury.” Id. at
*3.
Of Note: Lizarraga-Carrizales is a buffet of unappetizing entrees for counsel slugging away for their
Safety Valve-(ish) clients. Through some clever and aggressive litigation, two
of the state probation terms that caused unwanted points in this case were ended
early, nunc pro tunc, in state court.
Id. at *4.
The Ninth resuscitates these dead probationary terms, concluding that the key issue was whether the defendant was on probation at the time of the offense – not at the time of the federal sentencing. The tone of the opinion takes umbrage at state court’s tinkering with facts underlying a federal sentence. Interesting to contrast this federal supremacy theme to the remarkable deference shown to state courts in AEDPA habeas litigation, where state rulings on criminal law issues seem to reign supreme.
The Ninth resuscitates these dead probationary terms, concluding that the key issue was whether the defendant was on probation at the time of the offense – not at the time of the federal sentencing. The tone of the opinion takes umbrage at state court’s tinkering with facts underlying a federal sentence. Interesting to contrast this federal supremacy theme to the remarkable deference shown to state courts in AEDPA habeas litigation, where state rulings on criminal law issues seem to reign supreme.
How to
Use: A client gets a CH point only if the
actual probation sentence imposed is more than a year. What if a Safety Valve
aspirant gets that state probationary term reduced to less than a year, nunc pro tunc, after the federal arrest?
That’s one narrow little issue left unresolved in Lizarraga-Carrizales. See id.
at *5. There’s some tension in Ninth law on this issue – take a look if a
sympathetic state judge is open to some help on a probationary term.
For
Further Reading: The -2 offense level reduction in the
drug guidelines is fully retroactive!
See Press Release here.
The Sentencing Commission voted on Friday July 18 to make their amendment to
the drug guideline fully retroactive. On average, this change will save 25
months off of a federal sentence. Id.
Barring Congressional action, judges can start considering petitions for
reductions after November 1, 2014 (though no inmate will be released before
November 1, 2015).
Sentencing Commissioners in office of Hon. Senator Durbin |
In the ND Cal, new SF AFPD Shilpi Agarwal will be
spearheading the effort to get the district’s CJA clients retroactive relief –
stay tuned for more news and updates on these efforts.
Finally, NorCal’s own
Judge Breyer was one of the Commissioners who voted for full retroactivity of
this amendment – much credit due to the Hon. CRB (and his fellow Commissioners)
for this remarkable USSG development.
Image of
man holding nose from, http://traytables-travels.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-nose.html
Image of Commissioners at the office of the Honorable Senator Dick Durbin from http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=3211cb90-c327-484d-9ce9-364d7794cda5
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender, ND Cal Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
.
Labels: 18 USC 3553(f), Callahan, Federalism, Safety Valve, Sentencing, Trott
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home