Safety Valve Case Analysis

Listen to this article

Much of the majority’s discussion, as well as the reasoning of the trial court, misses the mark as to why the case must be decided this way. One of the cases cited with approval by the court will be more useful in other cases involving attempts to evade a mandatory minimum sentence — United States v. Boddie, 318 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2003).

In the case at bar, the district court stated that Vega-Montano’s “criminal history category is what it is.” Contrary to this assertion, however, criminal history categories are not what they are; they can be adjusted as the court deems appropriate, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4A1.3.

The reason the safety valve provision can’t be applied, as the court in Boddie and in numerous other jurisdictions explain, is that the language of the safety valve provision does not refer to a defendant’s criminal history category, but criminal history points. Thus, the explicit language of the provision bars an the adjustment requested by Vega-Montano. Even if a sentencing court reduces a defendant’s criminal history category, the points remain the same. Boddie, 318 F.3d at 496.

The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is not very clear on this, framing the issue as whether the district court had “authority to revisit the state court proceeding,” and concluding that it did not.

However, because the court cites numerous cases from other jurisdictions that directly address the issue, it is reasonable to expect that, even if a sentencing court granted a downward departure to a defendant’s criminal history category, such that he would fall in Category I, even then, the sentencing court could not grant a safety valve departure.

	Links Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Related Article Criminal history points cannot be adjusted

The Boddie case is instructive in yet another way. At the time of the offense, the defendant was on probation for operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license.

Just as in the case at bar, he was assigned one criminal history point for the underlying conviction, and two more because he was on probation at the time of the offense. The result was a much longer sentence than he would otherwise have received.

The decision in Boddie begs the question — why was a defendant placed on probation for operating while suspended in the first place? All too often, defendants are placed on probation, as a matter of course, without any consideration as to whether there are actually any rehabilitative needs that probation can supply. Cases such as Boddie should stand as a reminder that senseless probation can have a serious price for defendants.

The court does not address the issue of whether a safety valve departure would be justified if the sentencing court first made a downward departure because the criminal history category is overstated. Reading Boddie, and the numerous other cases cited in both Boddie and by the Seventh Circuit in the case at bar, however, it is clear that the court would reject such a departure.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.