justice safety valve act manufacturer

Proposed in March 2013, the Justice Safety Valve Act would allow federal judges to hand down sentences below current mandatory minimums if: The mandatory minimum sentence would not accomplish the goal that a sentence be sufficient, but not greater than necessary

The factors the judged considered in arriving at the lower sentence are put in writing and must be based on the language is based on the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

This proposed updated safety valve would apply to any federal conviction that has been prescribed a mandatory minimum sentence. As written, it would not apply retroactively; inmates already serving a mandatory minimum sentence would not be allowed to request a lesser sentence or re-sentencing based on the Act. It would only apply to federal sentencing; North Carolina would have to enact its own legislation to change state mandatory minimum sentencing.

In 2012, there were 219,000 inmates being held in federal institutions run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). In 1980, there were only 25,000. Approximately one-quarter of the Justice Department’s budget is spent on corrections. Over 10,000 people received federal mandatory minimum sentences in 2010.

In addition to these statistics, the application of mandatory minimum sentences leads to absurdly long sentences being imposed, at great taxpayer expense, on non-violent individuals. The organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) details how mandatory minimums have resulted in substantial – and unfair – punishments for low-level crimes, including these two examples: Weldon Angelos: Mr. Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison after making several small drug sales to a government informant. Several weapons were found in his home and the informant reported seeing a weapon in Mr. Angelos’ possession during at least two buys. He was charged with several counts of possessing a gun during a drug trafficking offense, leading to the substantial sentence, despite having no major criminal record, dealing only in small amounts of weed, and never using a weapon during the course of a drug transaction.

John Hise: Mr. Hise was sentenced to 10 years on a drug conspiracy charge. He had sold red phosphorous to a friend who was involved in meth manufacturing. Mr. Hise stopped aiding his friend, but not before authorities had caught on. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years despite police finding no evidence of red phosphorous in his home during a search. Mr. Hise was ineligible for the current safety valve law because of a possession and DUI offense already on his record.

The use of mandatory minimums that allow little discretion for judges to depart to a lower sentence have contributed to the growing prison population and expense of housing those arbitrarily required to spend years in prison. There is certainly room for improvement. Expanding this safety valve to all mandatory minimum sentences would reduce the long-term prison population while still ensuring that the goals of sentencing are met.

The first question a federal judge must consider in deciding whether or not he or she will sentence a person convicted of a federal offense below the mandatory minimum under the proposed Act is whether the mandatory minimum sentence would over punish that person. In other words, would the mandatory minimum put the person in prison for longer than is necessary to meet the goals of sentencing?

The proposed Act would ensure that the goals of sentencing return to the forefront of determining an appropriate prison term rather than substituting the judgment of Congress for that of the presiding judge during the sentencing phase of the federal criminal process.

There are currently just under 200 mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes on the books, but only federal drug offenses are subject to an existing sentencing safety valve. The actual text of the existing sentencing safety valve can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

In order for a federal judge to apply the existing safety valve to sentencing for a federal drug crime, he or she must make the following findings: No one was injured during the commission of the drug offense

These criteria are strict and minimize the number of people who could be saved from lengthy, arbitrary prison sentences. The legal possession of a gun during the commission of a drug crime has been used to deny the application of the safety valve as has prior criminal history that included only misdemeanor or petty offenses. In effect, the current safety valve legislation allows only about one-quarter of those sentenced on federal drug offenses to take advantage of the deviation from mandatory minimums each year.

Another exception to mandatory minimum sentencing, substantial assistance, is often unavailable to low-level drug offenders. Often those who are tasked with transporting or selling drugs, or who are considered mules, have little if any information about the actual drug ring itself. These people are then not eligible for a reduced sentence below a mandatory minimum because they have no information to provide prosecutors; they are incapable of providing substantial assistance.

Identical versions of the Act were introduced in the House and Senate, H.R. 1695 and S. 619. Both have been referred to the committee for review. The proposed Safety Valve Act would expand the application of the safety valve beyond drug crimes and would allow judges to ensure that sentencing goals are met while not over-punishing individuals and overcrowding the nation’s prison system.

However, the Safety Valve Act is no substitute for an experienced federal defense lawyer on the side of anyone facing federal charges; it is not a get out of jail card. If a judge deviates below mandatory minimums in sentencing, he or she would still be required to apply the federal sentencing guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence.

This informational article about the proposed Justice Safety Valve Act is provided by the attorneys of Roberts Law Group, PLLC, a criminal defense law firm dedicated to the rights of those accused of a crime throughout North Carolina. To learn more about the firm, please like us on Facebook; follow us on Twitter or Google+ to get the latest updates on safety and criminal defense matters in North Carolina. For a free consultation with a Charlotte defense lawyer from Roberts Law Group, please call contact our law firm online.

After conducting an investigation and communicating with the prosecutor about the facts and circumstances indicating that our client acted in self-defense, the case was dismissed and deemed a justifiable homicide.

For reference, these refer to the statutory language of 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(B), which instruct the federal judge on how he or she shall sentence anyone convicted of the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (i.e., an illegal drug) or possession with intent to either of these things.

How do you know if you are charged with one of these federal drug crimes that come with a mandatory minimum sentence of either 5-to-40 years (a “b1B” case) or 10-to-life (a “b1A” case)? Read the language of your Indictment. It will specify the statute’s citation.  If you do not have a copy of your Indictment, please feel free to contact my office and we can provide you a copy.

Can’t there be any way to get around that set-in-stone bottom line?  Yes.  There is also a statutory exception which allows the federal judge to dip below that mandatory minimum number of years in some situations.  It is called the “Safety Valve” defense.

The law, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), provides for an exception that allows the federal judge some leeway in drug crime convictions where he or she would otherwise be required to follow the mandatory minimum sentencing statute.  This is the Safety Value statute. It states as follows:

(f)Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimums in Certain Cases.—Notwithstanding anyother provision of law, in the case of an offense under section 401, 404, or 406 of theControlled Substances Act(21 U.S.C. 841, 844, 846), section 1010 or 1013 of theControlled Substances Import and Export Act(21 U.S.C. 960, 963), or section 70503 or 70506 of title 46, the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission undersection 994 of title 28without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, after the Government has been afforded the opportunity to make a recommendation, that—

(4)the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of theControlled Substances Act; and

(5)not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided 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, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

The only way to allow for this exception to be applied in a federal sentencing hearing is for the defense to argue its application and to provide authenticated and admissible support for use of the Safety Valve.

How does the defense do this?  It takes much more than referencing the exception to the general rule itself.  The defense will have to demonstrate the convicted defendant meets the Safety Valve’s five (5) requirements.

For a successful safety valve defense, the defense has to show that the total Criminal History Points are four (4) or less.  If you have a maximum of four Criminal History points, you have met the first criteria for the safety valve.

Note:  prior to the passage of the First Step Act, things were much harsher.  If the defense had even two Criminal History Points, then the accused was ineligible for the safety valve.  The First Step Act increased the number of points, or score, from one to four as the maximum allowed for application of the safety valve.  For more on the First Step Act, see The First Step Act and Texas Criminal Defense in 2019: Part 1 of 2 and The First Step Act and Texas Criminal Defense in 2019: Part 2 of 2.

Looking at the Safety Valve statute ( 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)), the second step in achieving application of the safety valve defense involves the circumstances of the underlying criminal activity and whether or not it involved violence of threats or violence, or if the defendant possessed a firearm at the time.

It has been my experience that it is pretty common for there to be a firearm of some sort involved in a federal drug crime prosecution.  Here, the impact of Texas being a part of the Fifth Judicial District for the United States Court of Appeals (“Fifth Circuit”) is important.

In the USSG, two points are given (“enhanced”) for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a federal drug trafficking offense.  See,  USSG §2D1.10, entitled Endangering Human Life While Illegally Manufacturing a Controlled Substance; Attempt or Conspiracy.

Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that under the Safety Valve Statute, the standard for the government  is much higher. According to their ruling, in order to be disqualified from application of the safety valve because of possession of a firearm, the defendant has to have been actually in possession of the firearm or in construction possession of it. See, US v. Wilson, 105 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 1997).

This is the example of the importance of effective criminal defense representation, where research reveals that it is easier to achieve a safety valve defense with a reference to case law.  The Fifth Circuit allows a situation where someone can get two (2) points under the USSG (“enhancement”) and still be eligible for the safety valve defense.

The commentary to § 5C1.2(2) provides that “[c]onsistent with [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct),” the use of the term “defendant” in § 5C1.2(2) “limits the accountability of the defendant to his own conduct and conduct that he aided or abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused.” See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, comment. (n.4). This language mirrors § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Of import is the fact that this language omits the text of § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) which provides that “relevant conduct” encompasses acts and omissions undertaken in a “jointly undertaken criminal activity,” e.g. a conspiracy.

Being bound by this commentary, we conclude that in determining a defendant’s eligibility for the safety valve, § 5C1.2(2) allows for consideration of only the defendant’s conduct, not the conduct of his co-conspirators. As it was Wilson’s co-conspirator, and not Wilson himself, who possessed the gun in the conspiracy,the district court erred in concluding that Wilson was ineligible to receive the benefit of § 5C1.2. Because application of § 5C1.2 is mandatory, see U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (providing that the court “shall” impose a sentencing without regard to the statutory minimum sentence if the defendant satisfies the provision’s criteria), we vacate Wilson’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

The defense must also be able to prove that the defendant’s role in the underlying criminal offense did not result in the death or bodily injury of someone else to achieve the safety valve defense under  18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

In drug cases, this can mean more than some type of violent scenario.  The mere type of drug or controlled substance involved can impact the success of this defense.  Sometimes, the drugs themselves are the type that can cause severe harm or death.  Several controlled substances can be lethal.  In a federal drug case, there is a special definition for death resulting from the distribution of a controlled substance.

If the defense can prove with authenticated and admissible evidence that the defendant did not distribute a drug or controlled substance that ended up with someone’s death, or severe bodily injury, then the safety valve defense will be available to them.

Role adjustments happen when someone is alleged to be involved in a conspiracy, and they act in some type of position of responsibility.  They can be a leader, or organizer, or somebody who supervises other people in the operations, all as defined in the USSG.

If you are to achieve the safety valve defense, you cannot receive any “role adjustment” under the Sentencing Guidelines.  This must be established to the court by your defense attorney at the sentencing.

The defendant has truthfully provided 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, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

I realize that for many people, this language brings with it the assumption that the defendant has to be a snitch in order to meet this requirement for the safety valve defense.  This is not true.

With an experienced criminal defense lawyer, what it does mean is that the defendant has a meeting with the authorities with the goal of meeting the Safety Valve Statute requirements and no more.

The attorney can limit the scope of the meeting.  He or she can make sure that law enforcement follows the rules for the meeting.   The meeting is necessary for the defendant to achieve a safety valve defense, so there is no way to avoid a safety valve interview.

I arranged for my client to have his safety valve meeting as well as establishing the other criteria needed for application of the Safety Valve statute.  I was present at the meeting.  There was no cooperation regarding the other defendants, and he did nothing more than the minimum to qualify for the defense.  He was no snitch.

As a result, the safety valve was applied by the federal judge and my client achieved a safety valve application where he was sentenced to 8 years for distribution of meth: well below the 10 years of the mandatory minimums and the USSG calculation in his case of around 14 years.

Sadly, the same day that my client was sentenced, so were several of the co-conspirator defendants.  I was aware that they were also eligible for the safety valve defense.  However, the federal agent at the sentencing hearings that day told me that their lawyers never contact the government for a safety valve meeting.

They were never debriefed, so they could not meet the requirements for application of the safety value statute.  The judge had no choice –they each had to be sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentences under the law.

This is a brief discussion of the law associated with themandatory minimum sentencing provisions offederal controlled substance(drug)lawsanddrug-related federal firearms and recidivist statutes.Thesemandatory minimums, however, are not as mandatory as they might appear.The government may elect not to prosecute the underlying offenses.Federal courtsmaydisregardotherwise applicable mandatory sentencing requirementsat the behest of the government.Thefederal courtsmay also bypasssome ofthemfor the benefit of certain low-level, nonviolent offenders withvirtually spotlesscriminal recordsunder the so-called"safety valve" provision.Finally, in cases where the mandatory minimums would usually apply, thePresident may pardon offenders or commute their sentences before the minimum term of imprisonment has been served.Be that as it may,sentencing in drug cases,particularlymandatory minimum drug sentencing, hascontributedtoan explosion in thefederal prison population and attendant costs.Thus, the federal inmate population at the end of 1976 was 23,566, and at the end of 1986 it was 36,042.OnJanuary 4, 2018,the federal inmate population was 183,493.As of September 30, 2016, 49.1% of federal inmates were drug offenders and 72.3% of those were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum.In 1976, federal prisons cost $183.914 million; in 1986, $550.014 million; and in 2016, $6.751 billion (est.).

Federal mandatory minimum sentencing statutes have existed since the dawn of the Republic. When the first Congress assembled, it enacted several mandatory minimums, each of them a capital offense.

Then, in 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act that created the United States Sentencing Commission and authorized it to promulgate then binding sentencing guidelines.

The hate crime legislation enacted in 2009 directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to submit a second report on federal mandatory minimums.Booker decision and its progeny, the Guidelines became but the first step in the sentencing process.

The second Commission report recommended that Congress consider expanding eligibility for the safety valve, and adjusting the scope, severity, and the prior offenses that trigger the recidivist provisions under firearm statute

6. Statutory relief plays a significant role in the application and impact of drug mandatory minimum penalties, and results in significant reduced sentences when applied.

8. However, neither the statutory safety valve provision at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), nor the substantial assistance provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) fully ameliorate the impact of drug mandatory minimum penalties on relatively low-level offenders.

Section 841(a) outlaws knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent to distribute or dispense controlled substances except as otherwise authorized by the Controlled Substances Act.

Manufacture: For purposes of Section 841(a), ""manufacture" means the production … or processing of a drug, and the term "production" includes the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of a controlled substance."

Distribute or Dispense: The Controlled Substances Act defines the term "distribute" broadly. The term encompasses any transfer of a controlled substance other than dispensing it.

Possession with Intent to Distribute or Dispense: The government may satisfy the possession element with evidence of either actual or constructive possession.

The felony drug convictionsthat trigger the sentencing enhancementinclude federal, state, and foreign convictions.The "serious bodily injury" enhancement is confined to bodily injuries which involve"(A) a substantial risk of death;(B) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or(C) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty."And, the "if death results" enhancement is availableonlyif the drugs provided by the defendant were the "but-for" cause of death;it is not available if the drugs supplied were merely a contributing cause.The same "but for" standard presumably applies with equal force to the "serious bodily injury" enhancement.

To prove an attempt to violate Section 841(a) "the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (a) had the intent to commit the object crime and (b) engaged in conduct amounting to a substantial step towards its commission. For a defendant to have taken a substantial step, he must have engaged in more than mere preparation, but may have stopped short of the last act necessary for the actual commission of the substantive crime."

Although it technically demonstrates an agreement to distribute a controlled substance, proof of a small, one-time sale of a controlled substance is ordinarily not considered sufficient for a conspiracy conviction. "[T]he factors that demonstrate a defendant was part of a conspiracy rather than in a mere buyer/seller relationship with that conspiracy include: (1) the length of affiliation between the defendant and the conspiracy; (2) whether there is an established method of payment; (3) the extent to which transactions are standardized; (4) whether there is a demonstrated level of mutual trust; (5) whether the transactions involved large amounts of drugs; and (6) whether the defendant purchased his drugs on credit."

Section 960a doubles the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking (including an attempt or conspiracy to traffic) when the offense is committed in order to fund a terrorist activity or terrorist organization.

Section 924(c) outlaws possession of a firearm in furtherance of, or use of a firearm during and in relation to, a predicate offense. A "firearm" for purposes of Section 924(c) includes not only guns ("weapons ... which will or [are] designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive"), but silencers and explosives as well.

Section 924(c) is triggered when a firearm is used or possessed in furtherance of a predicate offense. The predicate offenses are crimes of violence and certain drug trafficking crimes. The drug trafficking predicates include any felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.

Although the Supreme Court has determined that acquiring a firearm in an illegal drug transaction does not constitute "use" in violation of Section 924(c),

The "use" outlawed in the use or carriage branch of Section 924(c) requires that a firearm be actively employed "during and in relation to" a predicate offense – that is, either a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense.

Prior to the division, the Supreme Court had identified as an element of a separate offense (rather than a sentencing factor) the question of whether a machine gun was the firearm used during and in relation to a predicate offense.

A number of defendants have sought refuge in the clause of Section 924(c), which introduces the section"s mandatory minimum penalties with an exception: "[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law." Defendants at one time argued that the mandatory minimums of Section 924(c) become inapplicable when the defendant was subject to a higher mandatory minimum under the predicate drug trafficking offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)), or some other provision of law.Abbottv. United States.

There is "no authority to ignore [an otherwise qualified] conviction because of its age or its underlying circumstances. Such considerations are irrelevant ... under the Act."

Low-level drug offenders can escape some of the mandatory minimum sentences for which they qualify under the safety valve found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Congress created the safety valve after it became concerned that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions could have resulted in equally severe penalties for both the more and the less culpable offenders.

The safety valve is not available to avoid the mandatory minimum sentences that attend other offenses, even those closely related to the covered offenses. Section 860 (21 U.S.C. § 860), which outlaws violations of Section 841 near schools, playgrounds, or public housing facilities and sets the penalties for violation at twice what they would be under Section 841, is not covered. Those charged with a violation of Section 860 are not eligible for relief under the safety valve provisions.

For the convictions to which the safety valve does apply, the defendant must convince the sentencing court by a preponderance of the evidence that he satisfies each of the safety valve"s five requirements.

The safety valve has two disqualifications designed to reserve its benefits to the nonviolent. One involves instances in which the offense resulted in death or serious bodily injury. The other involves the use of violence, threats, or the possession of weapons. The weapon or threat of violence disqualification turns upon the defendant"s conduct or the conduct of those he "aided or abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused."

The Sentencing Guidelines define "serious bodily injury" for purposes of Section 3553(f)(3) as an "injury involving extreme physical pain or the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation."

The Guidelines disqualify anyone who acted as a manager of the criminal enterprise or who receives a Guideline level increase for his aggravated role in the offense.

The most heavily litigated safety valve criterion requires full disclosure on the part of the defendant. The requirement extends not only to information concerning the crimes of conviction, but also to information concerning other crimes that "were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan," including uncharged related conduct.

The substantial assistance provision was enacted with little fanfare in the twilight of the 99th Congress as part of the wide-ranging Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, legislation that established or increased a number of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

Defendants sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment have challenged their sentences on a number of constitutional grounds beginning with Congress"s legislative authority and ranging from cruel and unusual punishment through ex post facto and double jeopardy to equal protection and due process. Each constitutional provision defines outer boundaries that a mandatory minimum sentence and the substantive offense to which it is attached must be crafted to honor.

Many of the federal laws with mandatory minimum sentencing requirements were enacted pursuant to Congress"s legislative authority over crimes occurring on the high seas or within federal enclaves,

"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."United States v. Lopez, "[f]irst, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.... Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.... Finally, Congress"s commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce."

Applying these standards, the LopezCourt concluded that the Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to enact a particular statute which purported to outlaw possession of a firearm on school property. Because the statute addressed neither the channels nor instrumentalities of interstate commerce, its survival turned upon whether it came within Congress"s power to regulate activities that have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.

Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]. Thus ... when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States." That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment."

Justice Scalia, in his Raich concurrence, saw the Necessary and Proper Clause as a necessary Commerce Clause supplement for legislation like the Controlled Substances Act that purports to regulate purely in-state activity.

Five members of the Court concluded that it did not. Two members, Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist, simply refused to recognize an Eighth Amendment proportionality requirement, at least in noncapital cases.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment condemns statutory classifications invidiously based on race, or constitutionally suspect factors. Moreover, "[d]iscrimination on the basis of race odious in all aspects is especially pernicious in the administration of justice."

The Constitution demands that no person "be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury" and that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."In reWinship decision explained that due process requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt "every fact necessary to constitute the crime" with which an accused is charged.Winship, the question arose whether a statute might authorize or require a more severe penalty for a particular crime based on a fact—not included in the indictment, not found by the jury, and not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Pennsylvania passed a law under which various serious crimes (rape, robbery, kidnapping, and the like) were subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment for five years, if the judge after conviction found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had been in visible possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense.

There followed a number of state and federal statutes under which facts that might earlier have been treated as elements of a new crime were simply classified as sentencing factors. In some instances, the new sentencing factor permitted imposition of a penalty far in excess of that otherwise available for the underlying offense. For instance, the Supreme Court found no constitutional defect in a statute which punished a deported alien for returning to the United States by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, but which permitted the alien to be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years upon a post-trial, judicial determination that the alien had been convicted of a serious crime following deportation.

Perhaps uneasy with the implications, the Court soon made it clear in Apprendithat, "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt."McMillan"s mandatory minimum determination in light of the Apprendi.

Harris drew a distinction between facts that increase the statutory maximum and facts that increase only the mandatory minimum. We conclude that this distinction is inconsistent with our decision in Apprendi and with the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment. Any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an element that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. Mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime. It follows, then, that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury.

Neither Apprendi nor Alleyne limits Congress"s authority to establish mandatory minimum sentences or limits the authority of the courts to impose them. They simply dictate the procedural safeguards that must accompany the exercise of that authority. Thus, the lower federal appellate courts have held that the neither the Fifth nor Sixth Amendment requires that "facts that determine whether a defendant is eligible under the safety valve for a sentence below the statutory minimum" need be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you are charged with a crime by the United States Department of Justice, you may be facing a mandatory minimum sentence, especially if you were arrested on federal drug charges or federal gun charges. However, you may be eligible for the safety valve provision which can significantly reduce your sentence. To learn more about the safety valve provision, along with the strict guidelines for qualifying, Bill Finn, a Raleigh federal lawyer, is sharing what you need to know.

For example, if you are convicted of drug trafficking 100 grams or more of heroin (but less than one kilogram), your mandatory minimum sentence is five years. However, if death or serious injury results from your actions, the mandatory minimum sentence is increased to 20 years.

The Safety Valve Provision is outlined in 18 U.S. Code § 3553 (f) and was passed by Congress as part of the Sentencing Reform Act in 1984. This was designed to ensure that disproportionate sentences were not given to nonviolent, “low level” offenders with little to no criminal history. The Safety Valve is typically applied to drug crimes with a mandatory minimum, allowing a judge to reduce the sentence less than what is required in the U.S. Code.

In addition to the lighter sentence, the Safety Valve offers a two-point reduction in the total offense. Every federal crime has an “offense level” rated between one and 43, with the higher numbers representing more serious crimes or crimes with compounded factors. For example, if an offender obstructs justice during the investigation, the offense level is increased by two levels, whereas if they clearly accept responsibility for their actions, their offense level may be lowered by two levels.

For those who are eligible for the Safety Valve Provision, the reduction of two offense points can significantly reduce their sentence by months or even years.

Did Not Organize or Lead Others:The defendant can not be the leader, organizer, or manager of a group committing the offense. For example, if the defendant exhibited any type of control over another individual in relation to the offense, they are disqualified from receiving the Safety Valve Provision.

The only applicable charges are those outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3553(f). This includes, but is not limited to: Distribution, manufacturing, or dispensing of a controlled or counterfeit substance (21 U.S. Code § 841)

If you are facing federal criminal charges, you need an experienced attorney on your side to help you secure the best practical outcome in your case. We represent clients in the Eastern District of North Carolina, including Raleigh, Fayetteville, Greenville, and Goldsboro. Reach out to Sandman, Finn & Fitzhugh today at (919) 887-8040 to schedule a free initial consultation, or fill out the form below to get started.

When someone is convicted of a specific crime or accepts a plea bargain, they automatically receive at least a pre-established minimum sentence for that crime. It may come as a surprise that it’s actually Congress – not a judge – that sets those minimums. The judge can choose to increase the sentence from the minimum required, but cannot lessen the sentence – except for the Safety Valve Provision if it’s applicable.

In 1984 Congress passed the Safety Valve Provision as part of the Sentencing Reform Act. The purpose of the Safety Valve Provision was to ensure that individuals convicted of non-violent, low-level offenses who didn’t have a criminal history did not receive unreasonably disproportionate sentences. It generally applies to drug crimes with a mandatory minimum.

Each federal crime carries its own offense level, which falls between one and 43; the higher the number, the more serious the crime or aggravating factors. The Safety Valve Provision provides a two-point reduction in the offense level. Alternatively, if a suspect is found to obstruct justice during the investigation, the offense level is then increased by two points. If that same person is shown to be remorseful for their wrongdoing, their offense level may be decreased by two points. While two points may not seem like much, those two points can help to drastically reduce the length of one’s sentence.

The Safety Valve Provision does not apply to everyone; the individual must be eligible for it. To be eligible, the individual must meet the following requirements:

Not every crime is eligible for the Safety Valve Provision either. In fact, only those crimes that the statute lists are eligible. These charges include:

At Hancock Law Firm, PLLC, we fully understand what is at stake and will do everything that we can to help you to fight this order. To learn more or to schedule a free consultation, contact us today!

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit in equity to recover for the infringement of two letters patent, from a decree dismissing the bill. The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois by the Consolidated Safety Valve Company, a Connecticut corporation, against Erastus B. Kunkle, on letters patent No. 58,294, granted to George W. Richardson, September 25, 1866, for an improvement in safety valves, and on other letters patent, No. 85,963, granted to the same person, January 19, 1869, for an improvement in safety valves for steam boilers or generators. These are the same two patents which were the subject matter of the litigation involved in the case of Consolidated Safety Valve Company v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Company, decided by this Court at October Term, 1884, and

"A safety valve, with the circular or annular flange or lip c c, constructed in the manner or substantially in the manner shown, so as to operate as and for the purpose herein described,"

"a valve in which are combined an initial area, an additional area, a huddling chamber beneath the additional area, and a strictured orifice leading from the huddling chamber to the open air, the orifice being proportioned to the strength of the spring, as directed."

"the combination of the surface beyond the seat of the safety valve, with the means herein described for regulating or adjusting the area of the passage for the escape of steam, substantially as and for the purpose described,"

The decree in the present case was made in January, 1883, and proceeded, as it states, on the ground that the defendant"s valves did not infringe the patents. This also appears from the decision of the circuit court, reported in 14 F. 732. As the defendant"s valves have no huddling chamber, and no strictured orifice leading from a huddling chamber to the open air, we are of opinion that they do not infringe either of the patents.

St. Jude Medical Inc. (St. Jude) has agreed to pay $27 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act that, between November 2014 and October 2016, it knowingly sold defective heart devices to health care facilities that, in turn, implanted the devices into patients insured by federal health care programs. St. Jude was acquired by Abbott Laboratories in January 2017.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk.”

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Jonathan F. Lenzner for the District of Maryland. “The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so strengthen patient safety.”

St. Jude continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design. In August 2016, St. Jude contacted the FDA and informed it that the number of PBD events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing. On Oct. 10, 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the PBD caused by lithium cluster shorts, which FDA classified as a Class I recall. A Class I recall is where there is a reasonable probability that “violative” products “will cause serious adverse health consequences, including death.” After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between Nov. 20, 2014, and Oct. 10, 2016.

“Ensuring patient safety is our number one priority,” said Special Agent in Charge Maureen R. Dixon of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate and hold accountable medical companies who put profits over people and ensure the integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

“The FDA regulates medical devices to assure that patient health is protected,” said Special Agent in Charge Mark S. McCormack of the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, Metro Washington Field Office. “Reporting information untruthfully to the agency about the safety of medical devices jeopardizes patients’ health and safety. We will continue to investigate and bring to justice those who place the public health at risk.”

“The OPM OIG prioritizes the health and safety of patients above all else,” said Norbert E. Vint, Deputy Inspector General Performing the Duties of the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General (OPM-OIG). “We are grateful for today’s settlement and applaud the hard work of our Department of Justice and law enforcement partners.”

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Debbie Burke v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 16-cv-3611 (D. Md.).

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.