In the Courts

Safety Valve Proffer

In United States v. Mejia-Pimental, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 570329 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2007), the Ninth Circuit held that previous lies and earlier refusals to cooperate do not render a convicted defendant ineligible for a 'safety valve' sentence reduction, as long as the defendant makes a complete and truthful proffer before sentencing, and that the reduction is not contingent on the government finding the proffer to be helpful.

The defendant was convicted of multiple drug-related crimes. His initial sentence was overturned and remanded for re-sentencing following a successful Booker appeal. In the interim the other participants in the alleged crimes, including his uncle, the purported ringleader, were all convicted and sentenced. On remand, defendant offered a 'safety valve' proffer in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(f)(5) in an attempt to qualify for a sentence reduction. The government refused his offer, but the defendant nonetheless sent a proffer letter to the government detailing his involvement in the offense and his knowledge of the involvement of others, including his uncle. The district court found that he was not eligible for a safety valve reduction because, despite government requests that he cooperate, he had refused to provide information about his uncle until after the uncle had been tried and convicted of a lesser charge, rendering the information useless to the government. The district court held that in light of the circumstances, the proffer did not constitute good faith cooperation and that the defendant was therefore not eligible for a sentence reduction. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed, holding that the statute does not require that the proffer be helpful to the government, only that the defendant provide truthful and complete information prior to his sentencing. The court also noted that the fact that the defendant had previously lied or withheld information does not render him ineligible for the safety valve reduction.

Conviction for Forging Judge's Signature

In United States v. Reich , ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 625210 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2007), the Second Circuit held that a conviction for obstructing a proceeding requires establishing a nexus between the defendant's conduct and the obstruction of a proceeding, but a conviction under the federal statute criminalizing forging a judge's signature does not require a showing of an intent to defraud.

The defendant, an attorney engaged in a long-running dispute over the arbitrability of a claim, was accused of fabricating a fake order from a federal magistrate judge, forging the judge's signature on the order, and faxing it to opposing counsel. He was convicted at trial of corruptly obstructing a judicial proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C ' 1512(c)(2), forging a judge's signature in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 505, and of making a false statement to a federal officer during the investigation. On appeal, the defendant argued that to establish a ' 1512(c)(2) violation the government must show a nexus between his action and obstruction of a proceeding. He also argued that ' 505 requires a showing of intent to defraud. Both arguments presented issues of first impression in the Second Circuit. The circuit court agreed that ' 1512(c)(2) has a 'nexus requirement' but found it to be satisfied in this case. The circuit court rejected his argument that ' 505 requires a showing of intent to defraud. The court noted that although common law fraud does require intent, importing that requirement into this statute would
thwart Congress's goal in enacting the provision.

Safety Valve Proffer

In United States v. Mejia-Pimental , ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 570329 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2007), the Ninth Circuit held that previous lies and earlier refusals to cooperate do not render a convicted defendant ineligible for a 'safety valve' sentence reduction, as long as the defendant makes a complete and truthful proffer before sentencing, and that the reduction is not contingent on the government finding the proffer to be helpful.

The defendant was convicted of multiple drug-related crimes. His initial sentence was overturned and remanded for re-sentencing following a successful Booker appeal. In the interim the other participants in the alleged crimes, including his uncle, the purported ringleader, were all convicted and sentenced. On remand, defendant offered a 'safety valve' proffer in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(f)(5) in an attempt to qualify for a sentence reduction. The government refused his offer, but the defendant nonetheless sent a proffer letter to the government detailing his involvement in the offense and his knowledge of the involvement of others, including his uncle. The district court found that he was not eligible for a safety valve reduction because, despite government requests that he cooperate, he had refused to provide information about his uncle until after the uncle had been tried and convicted of a lesser charge, rendering the information useless to the government. The district court held that in light of the circumstances, the proffer did not constitute good faith cooperation and that the defendant was therefore not eligible for a sentence reduction. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed, holding that the statute does not require that the proffer be helpful to the government, only that the defendant provide truthful and complete information prior to his sentencing. The court also noted that the fact that the defendant had previously lied or withheld information does not render him ineligible for the safety valve reduction.