United States of America v. Cristino Parra Medina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4787
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRISTINO PARRA MEDINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00141-LCB-1)
Submitted: September 23, 2016 Decided: December 9, 2016
Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Scott Coalter, COALTER LAW, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Cristino Parra Medina pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in prison.
On appeal, Medina contends that the district court improperly
denied him application of the safety valve. We vacate Medina’s
sentence and remand for resentencing.
The safety-valve statute requires sentencing courts to
disregard any statutory mandatory minimum sentence for a
defendant who establishes that he meets five criteria. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. These criteria include that
“the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point,
as determined under the sentencing guidelines,” 18 U.S.C. §
3553(f)(1), and that “the defendant was not an organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as
determined under the sentencing guidelines,” id. § 3553(f)(4).
Application of the safety valve is mandatory where the five
specific factors are present. United States v. Beltran-Ortiz,
91 F.3d 665, 667 n.1 (4th Cir. 1996).
The probation officer who prepared the presentence report
(PSR) in this case determined that Medina had zero criminal
history points, that he did not qualify for a role-in-the-
offense enhancement, and that the other safety-valve
requirements were satisfied. The prepared PSR therefore
recommended application of the safety valve and calculated

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Medina’s Guidelines sentence without regard to the otherwise-
applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence. According to
the PSR, Medina’s advisory sentencing range was 87-108 months.
Counsel for Medina and the government agreed with the sentence
calculations and recommendations contained in the PSR.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court identified no
error in the PSR’s factual conclusions or sentence calculations,
but the court nonetheless expressed concern about applying the
safety-valve statute to Medina. The court noted that, because
Medina was an illegal alien, he might have had prior criminal
activity outside of the United States. The court also expressed
concern about Medina’s role in the offense, given his connection
to the leader of the conspiracy in Mexico.
In light of these concerns, the district court declined to
apply the safety valve. The court, however, did not impose an
aggravated role enhancement and did not increase Medina’s
criminal history category. Instead, the court adopted the PSR
as written, with the exception of the safety-valve-related two-
level reduction in Medina’s total offense level. See J.A. 252
(Statement of Reasons adopting PSR except for “[t]he two-level
reduction for safety valve[, which] does not apply based on the
fact the defendant was residing in the United States illegally
and there is no way to determine if he had any criminal history
in Mexico. Therefore, the Total Offense Level is 31.”).

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Medina argues on appeal that the district court erred by
refusing to apply the safety valve. We agree.
The district court concluded that, because of his status as
an illegal alien, Medina could not prove that he did not have
more than 1 criminal history point. The safety-valve statute,
however, only requires that Medina prove he “does not have more
than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the
sentencing guidelines.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) (emphasis
added); accord U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1). It is undisputed that
the Guidelines calculation in the PSR and adopted by the
district court met this requirement. The district court’s
conclusion that there was potentially other criminal activity
outside of the United States is purely speculative, impossible
to disprove, and irrelevant to whether Medina had more than 1
criminal history point, as determined under the Guidelines.
As to Medina’s role in the offense, the statute again
simply requires proof that “the defendant was not an organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as
determined under the sentencing guidelines.” Id. § 3553(f)(4)
(emphasis added); accord U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(4). The district
court affirmatively declined to apply a role-in-the-offense
enhancement to Medina, see J.A. 101-02, and the PSR as adopted
by the district court determined that Medina did not meet the
Guidelines’ requirements for such an enhancement. Because

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Medina did not receive a role-in-the-offense enhancement, he
satisfied the safety-valve requirements. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2
cmt. n.5 (“‘Organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others
in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines,’
as used in subsection (a)(4), means a defendant who receives an
adjustment for an aggravating role under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating
Role).” (emphasis added)).
We therefore conclude that the requirements of the safety-
valve statute were satisfied in this case, and that the district
court erred by refusing to apply the statute when sentencing
Medina. Accordingly, we vacate Medina’s sentence and remand for
resentencing. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 5 of 5 --