United States of America v. Gilberto Espinal Escamilla

Raleigh, North Carolina criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with possession with intent to distribute drugs.



Gilberto Espinal Escamilla pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to

possessing with intent to distribute, and distributing, 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). At sentencing, the

district court denied Escamilla's request for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)

and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (2018), and sentenced Escamilla to the

statutory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Escamilla contends that the

district court erred in denying his request for safety valve relief. For the following reasons,

we affirm.



Application of the safety valve under § 3553(f) is a question of fact that we for clear

error. United States v. Henry, 673 F.3d 285, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). "This standard of review

permits reversal only if this court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake

has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting such a review,

"we afford the district court's credibility determinations great deference.” Id.

To be eligible for relief under the safety valve provision, a defendant must show, as

is relevant here, that no later than the time of sentencing, the defendant truthfully provided

the government with all evidence and information the defendant had concerning the offense

or offenses comprising the same course of conduct or a common scheme or plan. Id.

at 292-93 (noting that the safety valve "requires broad disclosure from the defendant”); 18

U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). The burden of proof lies with the defendant to show that he has met

each element under the safety valve provision. United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 607

(4th Cir. 2012).



Escamilla acknowledges that he bore the burden of proving his eligibility for safety

valve relief. He contends that he did so but that that the Government did not offer sufficient

rebuttal evidence. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district could did not

clearly err in its finding that Escamilla was not forthcoming with the information he

provided to the Government. The Government provided testimony that Escamilla had

downplayed his role in the offense and denied his involvement with drug distributors. And

we will not second-guess the district court's credibility determinations.

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

Affirmed