Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    United States v. Jeridore, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Bernard Jeridore appealed his 120-month sentence for drug convictions, arguing that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for a sentencing reduction under the safety valve provision. 2) The district court found that Jeridore did not satisfy the truthfulness requirement for the safety valve because he was not fully forthcoming in his interviews with investigators about the extent of his drug transactions. 3) The appeals court affirmed, finding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Jeridore was not truthful and forthcoming in all respects with the government.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Jeridore, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    83 views8 pages
    1) Bernard Jeridore appealed his 120-month sentence for drug convictions, arguing that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for a sentencing reduction under the safety valve provision. 2) The district court found that Jeridore did not satisfy the truthfulness requirement for the safety valve because he was not fully forthcoming in his interviews with investigators about the extent of his drug transactions. 3) The appeals court affirmed, finding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Jeridore was not truthful and forthcoming in all respects with the government.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-07-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-4684

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Bernard Jeridore appealed his 120-month sentence for drug convictions, arguing that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for a sentencing reduction under the safety valve provision. 2) The district court found that Jeridore did not satisfy the truthfulness requirement for the safety valve because he was not fully forthcoming in his interviews with investigators about the extent of his drug transactions. 3) The appeals court affirmed, finding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Jeridore was not truthful and forthcoming in all respects with the government.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    83 views8 pages

    United States v. Jeridore, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Bernard Jeridore appealed his 120-month sentence for drug convictions, arguing that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for a sentencing reduction under the safety valve provision. 2) The district court found that Jeridore did not satisfy the truthfulness requirement for the safety valve because he was not fully forthcoming in his interviews with investigators about the extent of his drug transactions. 3) The appeals court affirmed, finding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Jeridore was not truthful and forthcoming in all respects with the government.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 8

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-4684

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BERNARD JERIDORE, a/k/a Benny B, a/k/a Bernie,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-03-162)

    Submitted:

    June 22, 2006

    Decided:

    July 10, 2006

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael S. Seekings, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.


    Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert H.
    Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard

    Jeridore

    appeals

    his

    convictions on various drug charges.

    120-month

    sentence

    for

    Jeridore asserts that the

    district court erred by determining that he was ineligible for


    application of the safety valve, 18 U.S.C. 3553(f), which would
    have required the court to impose a sentence without regard to the
    applicable
    courts

    statutory

    finding

    that

    minimum

    sentence.

    Jeridore

    did

    Because

    not

    meet

    the

    the

    district
    3553(f)

    truthfulness requirement is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

    I.
    In late 2002 Jeridore was involved with a major cocaine
    distribution network in Charleston, South Carolina, that was then
    under investigation by federal agents. Jeridore and fourteen other
    defendants connected with the network were charged in a 61-count
    indictment filed on April 10, 2003.

    Jeridore was charged with (1)

    conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and


    marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846, and (2) possession with the
    intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Jeridore pled
    guilty to both counts on October 29, 2003.

    The plea agreement

    provided that in exchange for Jeridores plea and cooperation


    (including his willingness to submit to polygraph examination upon
    the governments request), the government would move for a downward

    departure for substantial assistance and an offense level reduction


    for acceptance of responsibility.
    Jeridore was interviewed by government agents on several
    occasions. At the first interview Jeridore admitted to involvement
    in only one cocaine transaction.

    At the second interview agents

    confronted Jeridore with evidence suggesting that he had been


    involved to a greater degree.

    Jeridore then admitted that he had

    not been totally truthful at the first interview and admitted


    involvement in two other transactions.

    In all three transactions

    Jeridore obtained one to two kilos of cocaine from an acquaintance,


    J. Black, and then sold the cocaine to another acquaintance,
    Christopher Bryant.

    Although Jeridore had known Black since

    approximately 1992 and had conducted at least three major drug


    transactions with him, Jeridore claimed that he did not know
    Blacks full name, Blacks address, or what vehicle Black drove,
    nor did he know any means by which Black could be reached.

    The

    government characterized Jeridores asserted lack of knowledge


    about Black as nothing short of almost ludicrous.
    Agents

    also

    interviewed

    another

    drug

    J.A. 347.
    dealer,

    James

    Anderson, who reported that Jeridore had been involved in drug


    activity in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

    When agents asked

    Jeridore during a third interview whether he had been involved in


    the Myrtle Beach drug deals, Jeridore denied any involvement.
    After being confronted with a surveillance report showing his

    involvement, however, Jeridore conceded that he had once met with


    Anderson and that he knew Don Gause, a Myrtle Beach police officer
    who had been implicated in drug deals.

    Based on these conflicting

    statements, agents arranged for Jeridore to take a polygraph


    examination.

    The polygraph examiner opined that Jeridore had been

    deceptive when he told the examiner that was he was not involved in
    any drug transactions with Officer Gause. At Jeridores sentencing
    hearing Gause corroborated Jeridores assertion that they had
    neither conversed about drugs nor engaged in drug transactions.
    The district court granted Jeridore a two-level reduction
    for acceptance of responsibility but found that the 3553(f)
    safety valve did not apply because Jeridore was not truthful and
    forthcoming

    to

    the

    Government

    in

    all

    respects.

    J.A.

    350.

    Jeridores resulting guideline range was 97 to 121 months, but due


    to the statutory 10-year mandatory minimum, his actual sentencing
    range was 120 to 121 months. The district court sentenced Jeridore
    to a term of 120 months in prison.

    II.
    The safety valve requires a district court to impose a
    sentence within the applicable guideline range without regard to
    any

    statutory

    requirements.

    minimum

    sentence

    18 U.S.C. 3553(f).

    if

    defendant

    meets

    The requirements are:

    five

    (1) the

    defendant has no more than one criminal history point, (2) the

    defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or


    possess a firearm in connection with the offense, (3) the offense
    did not result in death or serious bodily injury, (4) the defendant
    was not an organizer or leader of others in the offense, and (5)
    the defendant provided truthful information to the government
    concerning the crime.
    defendant

    must

    Id.

    To satisfy the fifth requirement, the

    truthfully

    provide[]

    to

    the

    Government

    all

    information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense


    or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a
    common scheme or plan.

    Id.

    3553(f)(5).

    This provision

    requires more than accepting responsibility for ones own acts; it


    requires a defendant to disclose all he knows concerning both his
    involvement and that of any co-conspirators.
    Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 1996).

    United States v.

    The burden is on the

    defendant to prove that all five safety valve requirements have


    been met.

    United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 669 (4th

    Cir. 1996).
    Jeridore argues that the district court erred when it
    determined

    not

    truthful

    Government in all respects.

    J.A. 350.

    the

    that

    district

    he

    court

    was

    with

    respect

    to

    and

    forthcoming

    to

    the

    The factual findings of


    whether

    defendant

    has

    satisfied the criteria of 3553(f) may not be reversed absent


    clear error.
    1997).

    United States v. Wilson, 114 F.3d 429, 432 (4th Cir.

    In making its findings, the district court here observed

    that Jeridore had not been forthright with the government:

    when

    Jeridore failed to voluntarily tell the full story about the crime,
    the government confronted him with certain information, and he then
    grudgingly gave a fuller account.

    This approach did not satisfy

    Jeridores burden to disclose all he know about the crime, and the
    district court did not clearly err in finding that he was not
    truthful and forthcoming in all respects.
    The parties dispute whether it was appropriate for the
    district court to consider evidence (such as the polygraph results)
    about Jeridores involvement with the Myrtle Beach drug sales.
    Jeridore argues that the alleged Myrtle Beach drug sales were not
    part of a common scheme or plan with the charged conduct, making
    information about those transactions irrelevant for 3553(f)(5)
    purposes.

    Even if we were to agree with Jeridore on this point,

    however, we would affirm the district courts determination that


    Jeridore is not eligible for the safety valve because of Jeridores
    lack of truthfulness as to his drug transactions with Black and
    Bryant.

    Jeridore

    further

    argues

    that

    the

    district

    courts

    3553(f) untruthfulness finding is inconsistent with its finding


    that Jeridore was entitled to an offense-level reduction for
    acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. 3E1.1.

    Although there is

    some logical force to this argument, we cannot say that the


    district courts findings were so inconsistent [] that both could
    not stand.

    See United States v. Sabir, 117 F.3d 750, 754 (3d Cir.

    1997). We therefore affirm the district courts determination that


    Jeridore was ineligible for the safety valve.

    III.
    Jeridore next argues that under United States v. Booker,
    543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), facts alleged to deny a
    defendant

    an

    otherwise

    available

    sentence

    reduction

    must

    be

    admitted by the defendant or proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a


    jury.

    Because Jeridore did not raise this issue in the district

    court, we review for plain error.

    United States v. Rodriguez, 433

    F.3d 411, 414-15 (4th Cir. 2006).

    To establish that the district

    court committed plain error, Jeridore must show that (1) an error
    was

    made,

    (2)

    the

    error

    was

    plain,

    (3)

    the

    error

    affected

    Jeridores substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects


    the

    fairness,

    proceedings.

    integrity,

    or

    public

    reputation

    of

    judicial

    United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).

    In Booker the Supreme Court held that any fact (other than a prior
    conviction) necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum
    authorized by the facts established in a guilty plea must be
    admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable
    doubt.

    543 U.S. at ---, 125 S. Ct. at 756.

    In this case the

    maximum sentence authorized by the facts established in Jeridores


    plea was 121 months.

    Jeridores eligibility for the safety valve

    had no bearing on whether his sentence would exceed 121 months;

    rather, it affected only whether the court could sentence him to a


    term shorter than 120 months.
    plain

    Booker

    error

    Jeridore therefore cannot establish

    resulting

    from

    the

    district

    courts

    determination that he was ineligible for the safety valve.


    ***
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Jeridores 120-month
    sentence.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before


    the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like