is a safety valve snitching made in china

Many federal criminal defense attorneys are not aware of the pitfalls of the federal safety valve provisions. Persons charged with federal drug crimes need to retain an experienced criminal attorney familiar with all aspects of federal criminal law. An inexperienced or unknowing lawyer can expose a client to catastrophic risks. Here is why.

As we are all keenly aware, the federal government’s “war on drugs” is ensnaring hundreds of people with little or no criminal records who are caught up, for a myriad of reasons, with the distribution of drugs. This can range from a person carrying cash for a friend to pay for an airline ticket, to delivering a package to another person in exchange for cash to pay the rent or feed a child. Because of very harsh federal sentencing laws, the smallest players in a drug ring often end up being the most harshly treated. Most of time this is because the leaders of drug operations very often end up cooperating against others – including those below them whose “loyalty” they often gained through fear and threats of harm. Oftentimes, those persons caught on the lowest rungs of a drug conspiracy find themselves with few alternatives because they do not have significant information to provide to federal prosecutors, who retain exclusive control over who gets cooperation departures under the federal sentencing guidelines. As a result, defendants with minor or minimal culpability in a drug operation frequently end up on the receiving end of prosecutions involving tremendously high sentencing guidelines and, more critically, large minimum mandatory sentences.

In many situations, the only relief from mandatory sentences for those with little or no criminal history is the so-called “safety valve.” Many lawyers talk about the safety valve, but very few understand what it is and what it truly entails. It is perhaps the most misunderstood and most difficult opportunity for relief from mandatory minimum sentences and the sentencing guidelines. Federal crimes lawyers who do not specialize in federal criminal defense work run the risk of harming their clients through misguided efforts to gain relief under the safety valve provision.

It is critical to remember that there are only two ways to avoid minimum mandatory sentences upon conviction for a drug trafficking or drug conspiracy offense in federal court. One way is to cooperate with law enforcement and provide “substantial assistance” in the prosecution of others under section 5K1.1 of the guidelines. The other is to seek relief under the safety valve — Section 5C1.2 of the federal sentencing guidelines. (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)) This section allows a judge to reduce federal sentencing guidelines and ignore mandatory minimum sentences in determining punishment for eligible defendants.

But while understanding the possible benefits of relief under the safety valve is easy, becoming eligible for the relief is more difficult and fraught with peril for the unwary defendant. In fact, a failed attempt to gain “safety valve” relief can have a tremendously negative impact on a federal criminal defendant.

Section 5C1.2 allows guideline reduction and relief from mandatory minimum sentences when 1) a defendant ‘s criminal history is one point or less under the guidelines, and 2) the defendant truthfully discloses before sentencing everything the defendant knows about his own actions and those who participated in the crime with him. While a defendant is not required to testify in court or become a cooperator, the section does requires that he sit down with federal agents and prosecutors and tell them everything he knows about the charged crime. While a defendant won’t be a witness against others in his case, he still must tell on them. Government agents can affirmatively use the defendant’s information against others in the case without any limitation.

For example, if the defendant tells agents that he stored drugs in his brother’s house, agents can use that information to get a search warrant and raid that house for evidence, even though the defendant would never want his brother to be harmed. Moreover, because the defendant would not be a “cooperator,” prosecutors would be free to name him in their search warrant applications and make no effort to hide the source of their information.

Talking to the government in the context of a safety valve interview can potentially expose the client to consequences worse than those faced by cooperating witnesses.

Next, the attorney has to be 100% certain that the client is telling everything he knows and is not holding back information about himself or others. This requires that attorney be sure of what the government knows in the case before allowing a client to meet for a safety valve interview. If the government thinks that the client is lying, they can make the safety valve process impossible by telling the court about their impressions. If the government can prove the client is lying, then a court is free to increase a client’s sentence for obstruction of justice. Even worse, a client may also lose guideline point reductions for accepting responsibility for the offense and become subject to harsh mandatory minimum sentences.

A defense attorney has to know what the evidence the government has before allowing his client to even think about the safety valve. Anything less can expose the client to catastrophic risk.

The bottom line is that defendants considering a “safety valve” reduction had better have counsel who is experienced in federal criminal law and the pitfalls of federal criminal statutes – even those designed to help defendants. Before becoming a defense attorney, I spent almost a decade prosecuting federal criminal cases in U.S. District Court in Maryland. If you have any questions, contact Federal defense attorney Andrew C. White at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White. There is no situation with which we are not familiar.

A “safety valve” is an exception to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. A safety valve allows a judge to sentence a person below the mandatory minimum term if certain conditions are met.  Safety valves can be broad or narrow, applying to many or few crimes (e.g., drug crimes only) or types of offenders (e.g., nonviolent offenders). They do not repeal or eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. However, safety valves save taxpayers money because they allow courts to give shorter, more appropriate prison sentences to offenders who pose less of a public safety threat. This saves our scarce taxpayer dollars and prison beds for those who are most deserving of the mandatory minimum term and present the biggest danger to society.

The Problem:Under current federal law, there is only one safety valve, and it applies only to first-time, nonviolent drug offenders whose cases did not involve guns. FAMM was instrumental in the passage of this safety valve, in 1994. Since then, more than 95,000 nonviolent drug offenders have received fairer sentences because of it, saving taxpayers billions. But it is a very narrow exception: in FY 2015, only 13 percent of all drug offenders qualified for the exception.

Mere presence of even a lawfully purchased and registered gun in a person’s home or car is enough to disqualify a nonviolent drug offender from the safety valve,

Even very minor prior infractions (e.g., careless driving) that resulted in no prison time can disqualify an otherwise worthy low-level drug offender from the safety valve, and

Other federal mandatory minimum sentences for other types of crimes – notably, gun possession offenses – are often excessive and apply to low-level offenders who could serve less time in prison, at lower costs to taxpayers, without endangering the public.

The Solution:Create a broader safety valve that applies to all mandatory minimum sentences, and expand the existing drug safety valve to cover more low-level offenders.

As every criminal defense lawyer knows, there are some very draconian minimum mandatory sentences in Federal criminal court.  There are federal minimum mandatory sentences for certain drug offenses, firearm offenses, and for defendants who have certain convictions.   There are two ways to break the minimum mandatory sentence, which then allows a judge to sentence you below the minimum mandatory.  The first is called “substantial assistance.”  Basically, if you snitch and the government wants your information, uses your information, and they determine that it was worthy of a sentence below the minimum mandatory, they can file a substantial assistant motion and if granted by the judge, the minimum mandatory would no longer apply.  You can only get less than the minimum mandatory sentence if the prosecutor files the motion.  If they decide not to file the motion, the judge must sentence you to the minimum mandatory sentence up to the maximum sentence.  But what if you don’t want to snitch? What if you don’t have any information that the government is interested in?  There is one more option that will allow the judge to sentence you below the minimum mandatory sentence: Safety Valve.

The “Safety Valve” provision is a provision of law codified in 18 United States Code §3553(f).  It specifically allows a judge to sentence you below the minimum mandatory required by law.  However, you must be eligible.  There is also a two level reduction in the sentencing guidelines under United States Sentencing Guidelines §2D1.1(b)(17).

A common requirement that disqualifies people is the prior criminal record requirement.  Basically, anything other than a minor one time conviction will disqualify you.  However, old convictions may not count and some minor convictions also do not count.  There is a whole section in federal sentencing guidelines manual that addresses which prior convictions count and how many points are assessed.

In order to get safety valve, you, through your criminal defense attorney, must contact the prosecuting attorney before your sentencing hearing, and tell them that you want to provide them with a statement.  You must be willing to tell them everything you know about the offense, who else was involved, and you must be forthcoming and truthful.  It will be up to the judge to determine whether you meet this requirement.  You should not wait until the last minute either, as the prosecutor has no duty to take your statement within a short period of time before the sentencing hearing and the judge has no duty to continue your sentencing hearing to give you time to provide the government with a statement.

One difference between Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance is that there is no requirement for you to cooperate against anyone else.  So, once your provide the information to the prosecutor, you should become eligible to seek safety valve at your sentencing, without having to cooperate against anyone else.

If you are not convicted under one of these statutes, there is no Safety Valve option.  For example, Safety Valve is not an option for someone convicted under the Aggravated Identity Theft statute that carries a 2 year minimum mandatory sentence consecutive to any underlying sentence.  Similarly, if you were convicted of similar conduct to those eligible for safety valve, but were convicted under a statute not listed above, you still would not be safety valve eligible.  For example, if you were convicted fo possession with intent to distribute cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. §1903(a), you would not be eligible for safety valve, even though someone convicted of the same conduct on land would be eligible.

After graduation, Mr. Lasnetski accepted a position as a prosecutor at the State Attorney’s Office in Jacksonville. During the next 6 1/2 years as a prosecutor, Mr. Lasnetski tried more than 50 criminal trials, including more than 40 felony trials. He was promoted in 2007 to Division Chief of the Repeat Offender Unit.  Mr. Lasnetski was also a full time member of the Homicide Prosecution Team. In 2008, Mr. Lasnetski formed the Law Office of Lasnetski Gihon Law and began defending citizens in criminal court.  He represents clients in both State and Federal criminal courts.

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.

EPA regulations under Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are designed to protect the ozone layerozone layerThe region of the stratosphere containing the bulk of atmospheric ozone. The ozone layer lies approximately 15-40 kilometers (10-25 miles) above the Earth"s surface, in the stratosphere. Depletion of this layer by ozone depleting substances (ODS) will lead to higher UVB levels, which in turn will cause increased skin cancers and cataracts and potential damage to some marine organisms, plants, and plastics. The science page (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html) offers much more detail on the science of ozone depletion. and to provide for a smooth transition away from ozone-depleting substances (ODSODSA compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion. ODS include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, hydrobromofluorocarbons, chlorobromomethane, and methyl chloroform. ODS are generally very stable in the troposphere and only degrade under intense ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. When they break down, they release chlorine or bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone. A detailed list (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/index.html) of class I and class II substances with their ODPs, GWPs, and CAS numbers are available.).

EPA is also charged with enforcing these regulations. Enforcement actions range from civil fines to criminal prosecutions. Enforcement is performed within EPA by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

If you suspect or witness unlawful releases of ODS refrigerant or other violations of CAA regulations, report an environmental violation to EPA. See a list of fugitives accused of violating environmental laws, including smuggling ODS and evading arrest, for more information.

The most immediate consequence of possessing illegal CFCs/HCFCs is having them confiscated. The U.S. Customs Service, under its laws and regulations, may confiscate any goods that enter the United States illegally. The U.S. Customs Service can confiscate illegally imported CFCs/HCFCs all the way down the distribution chain. Purchasing your CFCs/HCFCs from a reputable wholesaler or distributor does not relieve you of responsibility. If the CFCs/HCFCs you possess were illegally smuggled into the United States, you could lose the valuable product, even though you paid for it.

There are many other potential consequences of purchasing or possessing illegal CFCs/HCFCs. If the U.S. Customs Service confiscates your CFCs/HCFCs, you might become the subject of an investigation by the Customs Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Investigations of your company might involve interviewing your employees and reviewing your records. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also might decide to audit you or your company regarding payment of the excise taxes on CFCs.

To make sure you purchase or possess legal CFCs/HCFCs, you should know where the specific brand was produced and the name of the manufacturer. Making sure you have legal material that meets the industry purity standard is good business practice. The U.S. EPA recently identified sales of a product marketed as Cool Penguin “F-12.” Sold in small cans through online retail platforms for motor vehicle air conditioner use, some cans of Cool Penguin consisted of CFC-12, CFC-114, HCFC-142b and HCFC-22, along with non-ozone depleting components. Under current regulations, not only is the import of these cans illegal, no person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, any regulated ozone-depleting substance that they know, or have reason to know, was imported illegally (e.g., without appropriate allowances or after the phaseout date for that chemical). For more information on the phaseout of ODS, please visit EPA ODS Phaseout.

Before you buy CFCs/HCFCs, you should ask the seller for documents of prior ownership of the product (and a laboratory analysis of the quality). Investigating the source of the material and the chain of ownership is your responsibility. If the material was imported, you should know when, where, and from whom it was imported. You also should ensure that the packaging for the material is appropriate. Illegally imported refrigerant is sometimes packaged in wrong size containers or fixed with improper valves. Remember, if you purchase or possess CFCs/HCFCs that entered the United States illegally, the U.S. Customs Service can confiscate the product.

The following is a partial list of recent, major completed cases. Additional information on other cases, including older ones, can be found at EPA"s Enforcement website here.

Schnitzer Steel Inc. has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,550,000 and implement compliance measures worth over $1,7000,00 to prevent the release of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The settlement resolves alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at 40 scrap metal recycling facilities throughout the United States. Schnitzer is also required to implement an EPA-approved Refrigerant Recovery Management Program and perform an environmental mitigation project involving the destruction of all R-12 in scrapped appliances and automobiles received at its facilities.

JTR handles the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes. EPA alleged that on at least two separate occasions, JTR knowingly vented R-22 and R-410a refrigerant during servicing of those appliances. Under the settlement, JTR will pay a $28,919 civil penalty and resolve the alleged violations.

Derichebourg Recycling USA Inc. has reached a settlement for Clean Air Act Violations at 10 scrap metal recycling facilities in Texas and Oklahoma. The federal complaint alleges that Derichebourg failed to recover refrigerant from appliances and motor vehicle air conditioners before disposal. Under the settlement, Derichebourg will pay a $442,500 civil penalty, halt any further release of ozone-depleting refrigerants, and implement a Refrigerant Recovery Management Program at its 10 U.S. facilities.

Connecticut Scrap, LLC and their five related scrap metal companies in Connecticut and Rhode Island agreed to pay a penalty of $160,000 and take important steps to comply with the Clean Air Act. These measures included certifying that Connecticut Scrap, LLC is complying with the regulations designed to limit releases of refrigerants used in air conditioning systems and cooling equipment that harm the ozone layer and climate system.

American Fire Technologies (AFT) has agreed to pay a penalty of $57,397 for importing 2,825 kg of used Halon 1301, a Class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS), without prior approval from the EPA consistent with the petition requirements.

AKE Safety has agreed to pay a penalty of $52,345 for violating the halon emissions reduction requirements by releasing Halon 1211 during promotional demonstrations and for failing to properly label fire extinguishers containing Halon 1211. AKE Safety has corrected the violations by ceasing to perform demonstrations that release Halon 1211 to the environment and properly labeling its products.

Southeastern Grocers Inc., owners and operators of regional grocery store chains BI-LO LLC, Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., Fresco y Más and Harveys Supermarket, have agreed to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting gases from refrigeration equipment at 576 stores under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Under the settlement, finalized January 21, 2020, Southeastern Grocers will spend an estimated $4.2 million over the next three years to reduce their company-wide average leak rate to 17% and upgrade fifteen stores to advanced refrigerants that have lower global warming potentials and do not deplete the ozone layer. The company will also pay a $300,000 civil penalty.

Trident Seafoods Corporation has agreed to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances from refrigeration equipment on its vessels, under a proposed settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Under the settlement, Trident will spend up to $23 million to reduce refrigerant leaks from refrigerators and other equipment, use non-ozone depleting refrigerants, and improve company-wide compliance. The company will also pay a $900,000 civil penalty.

Mahmoud Mohamed Alkabbani, the owner of USA Car Parts, entered into an agreement with a Chinese company to purchase R-22, which was packaged in cylinders bearing counterfeit “Glacier” trademarks. The 2013 contract with the Chinese company listed the product as R-134a – which does not deplete the ozone layer – but a second, secret agreement called for the Chinese company to actually sell R-22 to Alkabbani.

Terminix International Company LP and U.S. Virgin Islands operation Terminix International USVI LLC were sentenced for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands pest control company illegally applied fumigants containing methyl bromide in multiple residential locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the condominium resort complex in St. John where a family of four fell seriously ill in March 2015 after the unit below them was fumigated. According to the plea recommendation, TERMINIX LP and TERMINIX, USVI are to pay a total of $10 million in criminal fines, community service, and restitution payments. Under the agreed recommendation, TERMINIX, USVI will pay $4 million in fines and $1 million in restitution to the EPA for response and clean-up costs at the St. John resort. TERMINIX LP will pay a fine of $4 million and will perform community service related to training commercial pesticide applicators in fumigation practices and a separate health services training program.

U.S. Seafoods of Seattle will implement enhanced leak detection practices and replace freezer equipment to address violations of the Clean Air Act resulting from releases of ozone-depleting substances from two of its fish processing vessels in Alaska. EPA investigators discovered that in 2012 the freezers on two vessels owned by U.S. Seafoods -- the F/V Seafreeze Alaska and the F/V Alliance -- were leaking an ozone-depleting refrigerant called R-22. EPA found that the vessel owners and operators failed to repair the leaks in a timely manner and failed to confirm that the freezers were not leaking when finally repaired. U.S. Seafoods will pay a $135,000 penalty, replace some or all of its current R-22 freezers with units that use ammonia, and retire those not replaced. The company will also implement enhanced leak detection and repair practices.

On or about June 19, 2012, Byron Stuckey stole an air conditioning unit from a house located in Wichita, Kansas. The defendant knowingly released the HCFC-22 into the atmosphere when he cut the copper tubing refrigerant lines to the air conditioner he was stealing. Stuckey was sentenced to 12 months of probation on the federal charges.

Under a settlement with the EPA, two pesticide distributors, Superior-Angran LLC and Superior Angran Caribbean Inc. of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, were required to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act and federal pesticides law. The two companies also agreed to pay a $210,000 fine and provide professional training for pesticide applicators. From 2013 to 2015, Superior-Angran purchased, stored and sold two pesticides containing methyl bromide without complying with the Clean Air Act’s ozone-depleting substances reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Superior Angran Caribbean exported the same two pesticides containing methyl bromide without complying with the Clean Air Act’s ozone-depleting substances reporting requirements.

Shannon Wayne Harrold, 48, of Glenford, Ohio, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 54 months in prison and ordered to pay $29,045 in restitution for violating the Clean Air Act by cutting the tubing on air conditioning units he was stealing, which released a regulated refrigerant into the environment. In August and September 2015, Harrold engaged in a scheme to steal air conditioner units in order to sell the copper and parts from the units at scrap yards. He targeted suburbs in Central Ohio, stealing several units and dismantling them on site. “Refrigerants deplete the ozone layer which protects people from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation such as skin cancer, so it’s imperative that they are handled properly and in accordance with the law,” said Jeffrey Martinez, Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Ohio. “Through the illegal venting of refrigerants and the sale of stolen air conditioner parts, the defendant violated the Clean Air Act, which protects public health and clean air. EPA and its law enforcement partners are committed to the investigation and prosecution of illegal conduct that jeopardizes public safety.”

The national grocery store chain Trader Joe’s Company has agreed to reduce emissions from refrigeration equipment at 453 of its stores under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Under the settlement, Trader Joe’s agreed to spend an estimated $2 million over three years to reduce coolant leaks from refrigerators and other equipment and improve company-wide compliance. The company also agreed to pay a $500,000 civil penalty.

Under a settlement with the EPA and U.S. Department of Justice, Parkway Iron and Metal Co. agreed to pay $145,000 and spend approximately $260,000 to install pollution controls for alleged Clean Air Act violations at its scrap metal recycling business in Clifton, N.J. The company was fined for improperly shredding dozens of refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners without first removing refrigerants, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Two seafood processing and cold storage companies, Ocean Gold Seafoods Inc. and Ocean Cold LLC, have agreed to cut their releases of ozone-depleting and greenhouse gases from leaking refrigeration equipment at their facilities in Westport, Washington. In the settlement, the Ocean Companies agreed to pay $495,000 in penalties for violations of the federal Clean Air Act and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. In addition to the penalties, as part of the settlement, the Ocean Companies have agreed to fix all refrigerant leaks and implement facility-wide improvements expected to cost about $260,000.

Enviro-Safe Refrigerants, Inc., of Pekin, Illinois, has agreed to pay a $300,000 civil penalty and cease marketing and sale of unapproved flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants as substitutes for ODS. Enviro-Safe allegedly violated CAA requirements through the marketing and sale of two flammable hydrocarbon refrigerant products, ES 22a and ES 502a, as substitutes for ODS without providing the requisite information to EPA for review and approval. EPA has not approved any flammable hydrocarbon as a replacement for ODS in systems not specifically designed for flammable refrigerants and has warned that use of flammable refrigerants in those systems presents a risk of fire or explosion.

A settlement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Navy will help reduce potentially harmful discharges of ozone-depleting substances at the Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia. Under the settlement, the Navy will pay an $83,900 penalty for violations of the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Clean Air Act violations pertained to regulations designed to reduce discharges of ozone-depleting substances used as coolants in air conditioning units. EPA alleged that the facility did not perform leak rate calculations when it serviced the units. The Navy has implemented improved training and recordkeeping to help ensure proper servicing of equipment.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) has been fined $531,000 for alleged CAA violations at its chemical manufacturing plant in Deepwater, New Jersey. EPA fined DuPont for improper maintenance and repair of two large refrigeration units. When properly maintained, the systems are designed to minimize chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from leaking into the environment. The company also failed to accurately submit reports to EPA under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Martin C. Eldridge III, 35, of Columbus, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 31 months in prison for violating the Clean Air Act when he cut the tubing on air conditioning units he was stealing and released HCFC-22 into the environment. Eldridge and others stole at least 49 air conditioner units between August and October 2013 in order to sell the copper and parts from the units at scrap yards. When he cut the tubing that connected the air conditioner to the business or residence, a refrigerant known as HCFC-22 was released. Following prison time, Eldridge will be under court supervision for 12 months during which time he must perform 200 hours of community service.

Metal Dynamics, a Detroit scrap metal and iron recycling company, has agreed to pay $110,000 in penalties and invest $400,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the CAA. Under the settlement, Metal Dynamics agreed to implement a CAA compliance program at its facility to eliminate the harmful release of ODS and has also agreed to modify its torch cutting of metals to keep harmful particulate emissions at or below legal limits.

Costco Wholesale Corporation has agreed to cut its emissions of ODS and greenhouse gases from leaking refrigeration equipment at more than half of its stores nationwide. Costco will pay $335,000 in penalties for federal CAA violations and will fix refrigerant leaks and make other improvements at 274 of its stores, which EPA estimates will cost about $2 million over the next three years. Costco violated the CAA by failing to promptly repair leaks of a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerant, HCFC-22, between 2004 and 2007. Costco also failed to keep adequate records of the servicing of its refrigeration equipment to prevent harmful leaks.

eAir, LLC (eAir), a Florida corporation with its headquarters in Miami, was convicted and sentenced in federal court in Miami in connection with the illegal sale and distribution of refrigeration equipment that contained restricted ozone depleting substances, in violation of the federal Clean Air Act. eAir pled guilty for knowingly violating a requirement and rule relating to stratospheric ozone protection through the sale and distribution in interstate commerce of a product manufactured on or after January 1, 2010 containing the refrigerant gas HCFC-22. eAir was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay a $200,000 criminal fine. In addition, as a special condition of probation, eAir was ordered to implement and enforce a comprehensive Environmental Compliance Plan, to pay community service in the amount of $75,000, and to reimburse the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for costs incurred in storing illegal merchandise.

In a settlement agreement with the United States, Safeway, a national grocery store chain, has agreed to pay a $600,000 civil penalty and implement a corporate-wide plan to significantly reduce ODS emissions from refrigeration equipment at 659 of its stores nationwide, estimated to cost approximately $4.1 million. The settlement involves the largest number of facilities ever under the CAA’s regulations governing refrigeration equipment.

Alexander Morrissette, age 27, of Monroe, Georgia was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison after having pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly releasing ozone-depleting substances into the environment. The term of imprisonment is to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Morrissette was ordered to make restitution of $178,846.81, the amount of money needed to repair several commercial air conditioners illegally harvested for scrap metal. Randall Scott Wimpey, a Co-Defendant, age 31, of Snellville, Georgia, was previously sentenced to 15 months in federal prison.

Icicle Seafood, Inc., has agreed to resolve a series of CAA violations associated with HCFC-22 refrigerant. The violations include failure to repair refrigerant leaks in a timely manner, failure to ensure adequate repairs to refrigeration appliances before resuming operation, failure to possess a certified refrigerant recovery device for use when performing service on refrigeration appliances, and inadequate records of repair service on refrigeration appliances.

American Seafoods Co. LLC and Pacific Longline Co. LLC have agreed to a legal settlement that requires them to phase out the use of ozone-depleting refrigerants, improve shipboard refrigeration systems at a cost of at least $9 million, and pay a $700,000 penalty to resolve CAA violations. The litigation stemmed from the improper release and illegal import of ozone-depleting refrigerants.

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. (BIV), has agreed to pay a $300,000 civil penalty to settle a series of alleged violations of the CAA at its veterinary health products facility in St. Joseph, Missouri. The complaint alleges that the facility’s annualized leak rates of one or more of its industrial refrigeration systems exceeded 35 percent on one or more occasions during a five-year period. It also alleges BIV failed to perform leak testing and follow-up verification tests, develop retrofit or retirement plans for leaking equipment, complete retrofit or replacement of leaking equipment, and maintain proper service and maintenance records for its equipment. BIV has also agreed to replace refrigeration equipment at its Fort Dodge, Iowa, facility, switching older equipment that use ODS for new units that do not use ODS.

Da Yang Seafoods, Inc., in Astoria, Oregon, will pay nearly $27,000 in penalties for failing to keep proper records for its refrigeration equipment. The equipment uses HCFC refrigerants. From July 2006 to August 2007, Da Yang serviced its blast freezer at least 22 times and failed to properly document the dates of service.

Cedar’s Mediterranean Foods, Inc., a food manufacturing company, faces a possible $108,320 fine for 12 violations of the federal CAA. According to a complaint, the company failed to repair leaks, perform initial and follow-up tests after repairing leaks, and keep equipment servicing records for refrigeration equipment containing the refrigerant HCFC-22.

Brendan Clery was sentenced to 18 months in prison for illegally importing HCFC-22 into the United States. He was also ordered to pay a $40,000 criminal fine and forfeit illegal proceeds exceeding $900,000. Clery illegally smuggled approximately 20,460 cylinders of restricted HCFC-22 with a market value of $1,438,270. At no time did Clery, or his company Lateral Investments, hold unexpended consumption allowances that would have allowed them to legally import the refrigerant. This case is part of a larger criminal investigation known as "Operation Catch-22."

On September 4, 2009, Victor Diaz, doing business as Reliance Trading Company, attempted to illegally import two hundred 30 pound cylinders of HCFC-22 from Mexico into the United States, through California"s Calexico East Port of Entry. CBP officials said that when Diaz was asked for his permit to import R-22, through a broker Diaz supplied CBP officials with documents unrelated to the importation of R-22. CBP officials added that prior to this incident; Diaz and Reliance Trading Company were told by CBP officials at another border crossing station that prior permission from U.S. EPA is required for the legal importation of R-22.

Beginning in early August 2008, Danny and Sabrina Arnot, Beard, Joyner, and a fourth defendant, targeted businesses with commercial-sized air conditioners in Stephens, Hall, Franklin, and Hart Counties. Arnot, working with his wife or with his other accomplices, Beard and Joyner, dismantled the air conditioning units so that they could steal the copper and aluminum parts. To steal the copper parts, they had to cut a copper coil in each unit which released HCFC-22 into the atmosphere. The defendants were sentenced as follows: Arnot was sentenced to time served, 36 months probation, to perform 240 hours of community service and to pay $1,300 special assessment. Beard was sentenced to time served, 36 months probation, to perform 240 hours of community service and to pay $1,000 special assessment. Joiner was sentenced to time served, 36 months probation, to perform 240 hours of community service and to pay $200 special assessment. All three share $13,000 restitution to be paid to the victim who is the owner of Dunlap Stainless located in Gainesville, Georgia.

Preferred Freezer Services, a refrigerated warehouse company, has agreed to pay $75,000 to settle a case brought by EPA for CAA violations at three cold-storage facilities in Massachusetts. EPA alleged that three facilities failed to certify to EPA that they had appropriate CFC recovery or recycling equipment. Further, at two of the facilities, a company technician serviced appliances containing CFCs on various occasions without being certified by an approved certification program.

EPA alleged that Metal Management West, a scrap metal operator in Salt Lake City, Utah, accepted appliances and motor vehicles without verification that the refrigerant had been properly removed in accordance with EPA regulations. EPA and the company have entered into a consent agreement in which Metal Management will pay a $75,000 penalty for the alleged violations.

Based on the findings of an undercover inspector, EPA has proposed a penalty of $30,000 against a Fall River plumbing and supply company charged with selling ozone-depleting refrigerants in violation of EPA regulations. According to EPA’s New England office, Robinson Plumbing and Heating Supply Company sold ozone-depleting refrigerants to non-certified technicians at two separate sales outlets in Massachusetts, in violation of the CAA.

The city of Tacoma, Washington, will pay nearly $225,000 in penalties for the release of CFCs stemming from its refrigerated appliance disposal service, according to a consent decree lodged by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of EPA. The city will also pay nearly $300,000 for new pollution-reduction projects in Tacoma.

Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co. (Marcone), a Missouri corporation with its headquarters in St. Louis, was convicted and sentenced today in connection with the illegal receipt, purchase, and sale of ozone-depleting refrigerant gas that had been smuggled into the United States contrary to the Clean Air Act. Marcone pled guilty to knowingly receiving, buying, selling and facilitating the transportation, concealment, and sale of approximately 100,898 kilograms of HCFC-22, which had been illegally smuggled into the United States contrary to the Clean Air Act. Marcone was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay a $500,000 criminal fine. Marcone was also ordered to perform community service by making a $400,000 payment to the Southern Environmental Enforcement Training Fund, a not-for-profit training organization. In addition, as a special condition of probation, Marcone was ordered to implement and enforce a comprehensive Environmental Compliance Plan. Finally, Marcone was ordered to forfeit to the United States $190,534.70, which represents proceeds received as a result of the crime.

Dov Shellef, a businessman from Great Neck, New York, was convicted on 86 counts of conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service in the collection of approximately $1.9 million in excise taxes due on sales of CFC-113. The jury also convicted Shellef for subscribing to false corporate tax returns, wire fraud, and money laundering. Shellef faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for the conspiracy, three years for the false corporate tax return, 20 years for the wire fraud convictions, and 20 years for the money laundering convictions.

Led by one of its new starters and two of its 2022 holdovers, Keyport rallied from a 16-point deficit to beat Point Beach and position itself for a championship run.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion.common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Mandatory sentencing laws often target "moral vices" (such as alcohol, sex, drugs) and crimes that threaten a person"s livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so heinous, there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge.general deterrence for potential criminals and repeat offenders, who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught. This is the reasoning behind the "tough on crime" policy.

United States federal juries are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury"s role is limited to a determination of guilt or innocence.cross-examination of an informant who faced similar charges, to ask how much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in Idaho, it was deemed impermissible.

Notably, capital punishment has been mandatory for murder in a certain number of jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom until 1957 and Canada until 1961.

Throughout US history, prison sentences were primarily founded upon what is known as discretionary sentencing. Leading up to this period of time, sentencing practices were largely criticized due to the discretionary applications used in sentencing. The assessment for sentencing was determined by three separate decisions (1) policy decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy decisions to particular facts. In review of these policies regarding the applications of sentencing, the policy decisions are those that dictate what considerations should affect punishment. The second, which is factual determinations are the means by which a judge determines whether to apply a particular policy to an offender. The third decision judges make in discretionary schemes is how to apply the sentencing policies to the particular facts. This authority was applied by the judge under the discretionary sentencing system as historically practiced. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that mandatory sentencing was implemented. In short, the difference between mandatory and discretionary sentencing system lies in policy and application decisions.

Now that historical practices of sentencing have been introduced, it is just as important to outline examples in reference to (1) policy decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy vs. decisions to particular facts.

Policy Decisions – Policy guidelines that determine what should be acknowledged in an individuals sentencing criteria. For example: One judge might consider a reduction in time to be served vs. a judge who intends to exercise the fullest extent of the law in reference to the crime committed.

Factual Decisions – A review of details that would enable particular policies to be applied at the discretion of the assigned judge. Hypothetically consider, two or more individuals who attempt to commit a crime using a deadly weapon. Assume these individuals reach their destination point, where they plan to commit such a crime. Then the one individual who is primarily carrying the weapon takes it out to threaten another individual and waves it about, but is suddenly spooked enough that the weapon is dropped. While the other individual who accompanied the perpetrator decides to pick up the weapon, wave it about and even inflicts force of use with the weapon in order to attempt or commit the crime.

Their actions would result in punishment as a part of the sentencing process, regardless of the type of weapon in question. The 1st, individual in fact waved the weapon, but the 2nd, waved and inflicted force of use of the weapon. Therefore, the two individuals in question regarding the same crime would receive two separate sentences.

Decisions Applying Policy vs. Decisions to Particular Facts – This form of application is the core of discretionary sentencing. It allows for sentencing to be tailored to an individual. For example, consider a minor juvenile who has committed a crime that would allow for a lengthy sentencing period, but because the individual is a minor the assigned judge can exercise discretion and decrease the sentence to be served vs. applying the full length of the sentencing as outlined in policy and the facts associated with the crime.[1]

Overtime, the United States had under gone developmental growth in implementation of laws, sentencing guidelines and monumental transition points in time. Beginning in the early 1900s, the United States began to assess its role on the use of drugs, their purpose and the responsibilities within the law. During this time in 1914, opiate drug use outside of medical purpose was prohibited. It was not until 1930 that marijuana would reach the same platform as opiates, prohibiting use. This further led to stiffer regulations, even though the use of marijuana was not believed to evoke violent tenancies as previously suggested in earlier years, but this level of awareness had not reached public acknowledgment. Which further led to the implementation of sentencing guidelines in reference to drug use as well as sales consisting of opiates primarily (heroin and morphine), but also to include marijuana. The sentencing guidelines outlined applied to the use and sales of drugs. However, during this time discretionary sentencing was actively practiced. Therefore, the individuals who were guilty of using such drugs vs. the sale of such use typically resulted in different sentences.United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951.cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted different mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is the one act known for shaping America. The implementations of this act has had many profound affects in the legal system, as we know it today. This act led to a Drug Free initiative regarding an individual"s employment, a Drug Free work place and certification requirements for employers, and a Drug Free environment for those who receive government benefits regarding low-income recipients and their housing. This act further addresses interventions regarding illegal sales of imports, the ability to overtake ones assets, if an individual is found guilty of distribution. The act also implemented the first laws surrounding money laundering, which also led to the exposure of professional dealers. Those found guilty of distribution were sentenced as outlined.

Separate from each state"s own courts, federal courts in the United States are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.War on Drugs for more information about US drug laws.) When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant"s sentence and thereby create incentives to accept a plea agreement. In particular, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but the prosecutor can exercise his discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.

the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;

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 the Controlled Substances Act; and

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.

In 2013, United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. Prosecutions dropped, drug enforcement agent morale dropped, and fentanyl and heroin overdoses soared, reported The Washington Post in 2019.

Criminal justice advocates in the United States argue that mandatory minimum sentences are a major cause of the removal of the "bottom income half to quartile" of its population from the general public. As part of police targeting and surveillance and often harsh sentencing, mandatory sentencing often is proposed as "fairness" by those unfamiliar with the penal systems in the US. Mandatory sentencing still has not been linked to other areas such as racial profiling, a 700% increase in US prison incarceration rates, zero tolerance and prison growth at the expense of employment, housing, education, family support and quality of life.

The U.S. state of Florida has a 10-20-Life mandatory sentence law regarding sentences for the use of a firearm during the commission of another crime, and many PSA posters were created after the law was passed, which coined the slogan "Use a gun, and you’re done." It gave a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years if the offender pulls a gun, but does not fire a shot, 20 years if at least one shot is fired, and 25 years to life if the offender shoots someone.

In 1996, 12-month mandatory sentencing laws around third offence home burglary were introduced by Western Australia through amendments to the 1913 Criminal Code.three strikes and out policy raised incarceration rates of indigenous women by 223% in the first year.

New South Wales has two mandatory sentences currently. The Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 introduced mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of murdering a police officer.king hit assaults in Sydney. These laws were championed by NSW Premier Barry O"Farrell largely due to the wide media coverage of similar cases,

Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder in Queensland, South Australia, and the Northern Territory. Life imprisonment is only mandatory in the other states for aircraft hijacking or with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years (25 years in South Australia and the Northern Territory) if a criminal is convicted of the murder of a police officer or public official.

Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five and 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.

In Czechoslovakia, under Beneš decree No. 16/1945 Coll., informing to German authorities during World War II"s occupation was subject to a mandatory death sentence if it led to death of the person concerned by the act.

In pre-1833 France, before juries were allowed to find mitigating circumstances to felonies, death penalty was the only available sentence for capital offenses. Given this, the question of mitigating circumstances became crucial when juries considered verdict against a person prosecuted for assassinat (roughtly first-degree murder) until the abolition of the guillotine in 1981.

In Hong Kong, murder carried a mandatory death sentence until 1993, when capital punishment was legally abolished. However, the last execution was in 1966, and all death sentences afterward were automatically commuted to life imprisonment. Since then, murder carries a mandatory life sentence.

In India, murder committed by a convict serving a life sentence carries a mandatory death sentence. The mandatory death penalty provided in Section 31A of India Law is in the nature of minimum sentence in respect of repeat offenders of specified activities and for offences involving large quantities of specified categories of narcotic drugs. As of August 2005, aircraft hijacking also mandates use of the death penalty.

In Malaysia and Singapore, there is a mandatory death penalty for certain offences, most notably murder and possession of a certain amount of controlled drugs (see Capital punishment in Singapore, Capital punishment in Malaysia and Capital punishment for drug trafficking), although recently these rules have been relaxed. Under the Arms Offences Act of Singapore, the death penalty is also mandatory for discharge of illegal firearms, and should an offender be found in possession of a firearm when arrested for any offence, the offender faces a mandatory life sentence with caning. Mandatory caning is also applied to cases like robbery under Singapore law.

In Sweden, under the previous penal code (abolished in 1966), capital punishment was mandatory for prisoners serving a life sentence found guilty for murder or, unless under mitigating circumstances, manslaughter. The death penalty for murder was abolished in 1921.

In Taiwan, there used to be a large number of offenses that carried a mandatory death penalty; by 2006, all these laws have been relaxed to permit judicial discretion.

In the United Kingdom, crimes punishable by a mandatory death sentence included murder (until 1957, and from 1957 to 1965 if certain aggravating criteria were met, such as murder by firearm or murders on separate occasions), treason (until 1998), sedition and espionage.

In Israel, the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law mandates a death penalty for those found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes against the Jewish people.

Denmark has mandatory minimum sentences for murder (five years to life) and regicide (life in prison § 115), deadly arson is punished with imprisonment from 4 years to life, and for an illegal loaded gun one year in state prison.

The state of Florida in the United States has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as 10-20-Life, which includes the following minimums: 10 years" imprisonment for using a gun during a crime, 20 years" imprisonment for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 years" imprisonment in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.

In Canada and Ireland, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder if committed, at the time of the offence, as an adult. Parole ineligibility periods vary, but under Irish and Canadian law, are not less than 7 and 10 years, respectively.

In New Zealand, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder. Murders with certain aggravating factors have a mandatory 17-year non-parole period, instead of the default 10 years for life imprisonment. Since 2002, judges have the ability to overrule mandatory sentences where they would be deemed "manifestly unjust", such as in cases involving mercy killings and failed suicide pacts.

In Germany, murder for pleasure, sexual gratification, greed or other base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or to facilitate or cover up another offense is mandatorily punished by life imprisonment.

In Ireland, Acts of the Oireachtas specify a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder and treason, and mandatory minimum sentences for various lesser offences.separation of powers required by the constitution, by allowing the Oireachtas (legislature) to interfere in the judicial process.Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder was constitutional.Circuit Court for reconsideration.

In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. The law requires that courts must set a minimum term before they become eligible for parole. For this purpose a number of "starting points" are in place that give guidance to a judge to impose a sentence in each different case of murder. There are currently five "starting points" for murder in England and Wales, namely: 12 years" imprisonment for cases of murder committed by a person under 18; 15 years" imprisonment for all "other" cases of murder committed by a person over 18; 25 years" imprisonment for cases of murder where a person over 18 uses a knife or other weapon at the scene; 30 years" imprisonment for cases of murder with "particularly" high aggravating factors, such as those that involve the use of a firearm or explosive, or a murder in the course of committing another offence such as robbery or burglary; and a whole life order, in cases that involve such "exceptionally" high aggravating factors, such as the murder of two or more persons, or the murder of a child following abduction or with sexual/sadistic motivation, meaning the person will never become eligible for parole.

The United Kingdom currently also has three more mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years" imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years" imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years" imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years" imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.

In 1994, California introduced a "Three Strikes Law". This state is known for fully enforcing laws and is considered most severe in comparison to other states. The Three strikes law was intended to reduce crime by implementing extended sentencing to deter repeated offenders. This consideration further restricts one"s ability to commit new crimes.jurisdictions.

Directly affects individuals who exhibit a history regarded as violent or serious pertaining to their initial felony conviction. Should this history exist, it could greatly impact sentencing guidelines surrounding an individuals present felony conviction.

An individual who has committed a crime resulting in their 2nd felony conviction, would be affected by the second strike as well. This would impact the length of the individuals sentencing by doubling the sentence one would initially be subject to, if it were their first felony conviction.

Is intended individuals who appear to be repeated offenders. Therefore, this strike is for individuals who have two or more felony convictions, their sentencing would result in a minimum of 25 years to life.

A similar "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997.class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labour opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.

According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2003 a new "two strikes" law was enacted (effective from April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public.prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous.

Australia"s Northern Territory in March 1997 introduced mandatory sentences of one month to one year for the third offence regarding property and theft. They were later adopted by Western Australia.

Concerning US federal prisons, Barbara S. Meierhoefer, in her report for the Federal Judicial Center stated: "The proportion of black offenders grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% of the mandatory minimum drug offenders by 1990; whites now constitute less than a majority of this group. This is a much more dramatic shift than found in the federal offender population in general."

Harsh penalties lead to racial disparity. According to the Statistical Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties presented in October 2011, "[o]f all offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black (n=4,076), 31.8 percent were Hispanic (n=3,364), and 27.5 percent (n=2,913) were White."

Although exceptions such as the safety valve are authorized, demographics associated with race relevant to mandatory sentencing continue to show. "Hispanic offenders received relief from applicable mandatory minimum penalties at the highest rates, with rates of 65.9 percent in fiscal year 2000, 57.7 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 55.7 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other Race offenders had the next highest rates (52.8% in fiscal year 2000, 53.1% in fiscal year 2005 and 58.9% in fiscal year 2010). Black offenders consistently had the lowest rates (45.7% in fiscal year 2000, 32.8 percent in fiscal year 20