United States v. Da Cai Chen, Also Known as Ah-Choi, Also Known as Chen Da Cai
Docket: 1181
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 14, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Da Cai Chen appeals his sentence following a guilty plea for distributing and possessing heroin, violating 21 U.S.C. 812, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. 2. He argues that the district court improperly denied the application of the Sentencing Guidelines' safety valve, which would have allowed for a sentence below the mandatory ten-year minimum. Chen also claims the court failed to provide reasons for his specific sentence within the Guidelines range as required by 18 U.S.C. 3553(c). The court's interpretation of the plea agreement and Sentencing Guideline provisions is central to this appeal, necessitating an examination of contextual factors rather than just the text.
Chen's criminal involvement was uncovered during an FBI investigation into a heroin trafficking organization led by Lei Da-Tian. Following the arrests of Lei and several associates in April 1995, the investigation revealed that Chen had served as a courier for Lei for nearly two years, handling deliveries and pickups of heroin. He also stored and transported firearms for the organization, including a machine gun and a handgun found during a subsequent search. Chen was arrested in 1995 and, through a plea agreement, pled guilty to distributing over one kilogram of heroin based on his admissions of delivering heroin for Lei in December 1994.
Chen admitted to distributing between one and three kilograms of heroin, leading to a base offense level of 32 under the Sentencing Guidelines. His possession of firearms on behalf of Lei warranted a two-level enhancement due to being classified as 'relevant conduct'. In exchange for his plea, the government agreed that his timely plea would demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a three-level decrease in the offense level. Consequently, with a Criminal History Category of I, his sentencing range was calculated to be between 108 and 135 months. However, due to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, the effective range was adjusted to 120 to 135 months.
Both parties agreed not to seek any adjustments to the Guidelines range but retained the right to respond to any differing calculations by the court or the Probation Department. Chen waived his right to appeal any sentence within or below the stipulated range of 120-135 months.
The pre-sentence report (PSR) supported the Guidelines calculation from the plea agreement, asserting that Chen had firearms during the offense. Chen's counsel objected to this assertion and contested his ineligibility for the safety valve provision. The Probation Department amended the PSR, maintaining that the firearm possession was relevant conduct, hence confirming his ineligibility for the safety valve.
The sentencing court accepted the PSR's findings and confirmed the sentencing range of 120-135 months, imposing the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Chen's appeal challenges this sentence, but the government argues it is barred by his waiver of the right to appeal as outlined in the plea agreement. Generally, a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal a sentence within an agreed Guidelines range is enforceable, preventing any appeal on a conforming sentence.
Appellant Chen's express waiver of the right to appeal any sentence within or below the stipulated Guidelines range seemingly bars his challenge to a sentence of 120 to 135 months. However, during the plea allocution, the magistrate judge mistakenly informed him that by pleading guilty, he was only waiving the right to appeal if convicted at trial, retaining the right to appeal an "illegal" sentence. Chen argues that this misstatement invalidates his waiver, claiming it was not knowing and voluntary. He cites United States v. Ready, where a similar misstatement led to the court declining to enforce a waiver because the record did not clearly demonstrate the defendant's understanding of the waiver's implications. The current case parallels Ready, as the magistrate judge failed to assess Chen's understanding of the waiver terms or confirm his ability to read the Agreement. Consequently, without evidence of Chen's knowledge regarding the waiver, the misstatement may render it ineffective.
Assuming the waiver is ineffective, the merits of the appeal are addressed. Chen contests the district court's ruling that he was ineligible for the safety valve provision under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), arguing it stemmed from an incorrect interpretation of the eligibility criteria. The safety valve allows courts to disregard mandatory minimum sentences for less culpable defendants, provided they meet five specific criteria outlined in § 3553(f)(1)-(5), such as not having a significant criminal history or engaging in violent conduct. These criteria are further detailed in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
The government acknowledges that the appellant meets four of the five safety valve criteria under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). While the appellant admits to possessing a firearm in relation to his heroin trafficking, he contends that the safety valve provision applies only to firearm possession during the specific offense of conviction. He claims that because he did not possess a weapon during the heroin delivery related to his guilty plea, he fulfills all criteria. The appellant argues that the term "offense" in the safety valve provisions should be interpreted consistently, suggesting that the phrase "that were part of the same course of conduct" in the statute would be redundant if it included both the offense of conviction and relevant conduct. He also posits that any ambiguity in the statute should be resolved in his favor based on the rule of lenity.
However, the court rejects this interpretation, referring to U.S.S.G. 5C1.2, which clarifies that "offense" encompasses both the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct. The commentary provided by the Sentencing Commission is seen as authoritative unless it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions or is a plainly erroneous reading of the Guidelines. While the authority of the Sentencing Commission's commentary may be less clear concerning statutes that it mirrors, Congress tasked the Commission with interpreting 3553 to further its objectives. The inclusion of "relevant conduct" in the commentary aligns with Congress's intent to exclude only those defendants who play minor, non-violent roles in drug offenses from mandatory minimum sentences. Allowing a defendant to benefit from the safety valve simply because he did not carry a weapon during the specific offense, despite possessing one during related activities, would contradict this legislative purpose.
Appellant's interpretation of the statute's phrase "in connection with" overlooks its broader implications, implying that the connection to the offense extends beyond the act itself. The court referenced prior cases, including United States v. Spurgeon, which established that "in connection with" requires evidence that a firearm served a purpose regarding the offense. The record indicates that Chen's storage of firearms for the Lei conspiracy was directly related to his role as a courier for heroin distribution, supporting the conclusion that the firearms were indeed held "in connection with" his offense.
The court rejected claims of ambiguity in the statute that would qualify Chen for the safety valve provision, noting he had already received a sentence reduction through plea negotiations. Chen was aware of the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months, which was imposed. Additionally, the court addressed Chen's argument about the adequacy of the sentencing explanation, emphasizing that under 18 U.S.C. 3553(c), a court must state its reasons for a particular sentence within the Guidelines range. Although the sentencing range calculated was 108-135 months, the mandatory minimum of 120 months effectively narrowed it to 120-135 months. The court found that any failure to state reasons for the 120-month sentence was harmless error, as it could not lead to a lesser sentence. Ultimately, the district court's sentence was affirmed.
