Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 31, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Juan Jose Bolanos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess over 500 grams of cocaine, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and § 846. The district court imposed a 60-month prison sentence and four years of supervised release, which is the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Bolanos appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly denied him safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and a role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, claiming he played a minor role in the conspiracy. The appeal also included several pro se claims that did not alter the appeal's outcome.
In May 2003, law enforcement investigated a cocaine distribution scheme involving Jose Perez-Alonzo, with Bolanos present but not actively participating in discussions. Bolanos later engaged in phone conversations attempting to persuade an undercover officer to purchase cocaine. During a subsequent meeting, Bolanos was connected to Perez-Alonzo while DEA agents surveilled their activities, leading to Bolanos's vehicle being stopped and searched, revealing about one kilogram of cocaine.
After a jury deadlocked in Bolanos's first trial, he opted for a guilty plea, which carried a sentencing range from 5 to 40 years. At sentencing, Bolanos sought safety-valve relief to avoid the mandatory minimum but was required to demonstrate the completeness and truthfulness of his proffer regarding his knowledge of the offense. The court reviews safety-valve claims for clear error, emphasizing the defendant's burden to provide comprehensive information related to the offense.
Bolanos, after pleading guilty, participated in a safety-valve interview with his attorney, Porras, and the prosecutor. The government, in a February 27, 2004 letter, advised against applying the safety-valve provision, citing Bolanos's failure to provide complete information regarding his offense. The letter noted that Bolanos acknowledged discussing a cocaine deal with Officer Porras and was aware he was delivering cocaine on May 14.
During the proffer, Bolanos claimed he did not know about the cocaine in his car until informed by Perez-Alonzo during his drive to meet Porras, asserting he was an unwitting participant in the delivery. However, his statements at the change of plea hearing and the proffer were not entirely inconsistent, as he admitted to discussing a drug transaction but also claimed ignorance during part of the drive. The presence of a strong odor of cocaine noted by arresting officers further questioned his truthfulness.
The district court found inconsistencies in Bolanos's statements and sided with the government's position, ultimately deciding against applying the safety-valve provision. The appellate court affirmed the district court's findings, stating that as long as the court's account of the evidence was plausible, it would not be overturned, even if the appellate judges would have weighed the evidence differently. Consequently, Bolanos's claim for role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 became moot, as any reversal would not impact his mandatory minimum sentence.
Bolanos raises three claims in his pro-se supplemental brief: (1) the district court incorrectly ordered a retrial after a jury deadlock, (2) the court improperly accepted his guilty plea, and (3) his sentence contravenes Blakely v. Washington. Each claim is found to lack merit. The court reinforces that it is standard practice for a trial judge to discharge a genuinely deadlocked jury and mandate a retrial, aligning with the judicial interest in allowing the prosecution a complete chance to secure a conviction. Regarding the guilty plea, the court determined that the district court sufficiently explained the charges, penalties, and rights waived, and Bolanos had consulted with his attorney and provided adequate evidence of his offense. Lastly, concerning the sentence, it was based on a mandatory minimum set by statute rather than the United States Sentencing Guidelines, thus complying with Blakely. The sentence is affirmed.
