United States v. Justin Joseph Garza

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13294

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN JOSEPH GARZA,

a.k.a. Poncho,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00082-KKM-TGW-1

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 7

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13294

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Justin Joseph Garza appeals the district court’s finding that

he was ineligible for safety valve relief. We affirm.

I.

Garza pleaded guilty to: (1) conspiring to distribute and pos-

sess with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of metham-

phetamine; (2) distributing and possessing with the intent to dis-

tribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine; and (3) pos-

sessing with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of meth-

amphetamine.

Garza’s base offense level was thirty-two, but his offense

level was reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsibility,

making his final offense level twenty-nine. Based on his offense

level and lack of criminal history, Garza’s advisory guideline range

was eighty-seven months to one hundred eight months’ imprison-

ment. The offenses of conviction each carried a ten-year manda-

tory minimum, however, so his guideline range became one hun-

dred twenty months’ imprisonment.

Before sentencing, Garza sought safety valve relief to reduce

his sentence under guideline section 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. section

3553(f). Garza argued that he qualified for safety valve relief be-

cause he “truthfully provided to the [g]overnment all information

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 7

21-13294 Opinion of the Court 3

and evidence[] he ha[d] about this offense before the sentencing

hearing.” Garza argued that he met with “case agents to provide

the [g]overnment all information and evidence that he had about

the offense,” including “the transactions, communications[,] and

specific details of this conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.”

He told the government that he “was the source of the metham-

phetamine,” but “the [g]overnment and its agents did not want to

discuss the specifics of this conspiracy.”

The government opposed Garza’s eligibility for safety valve

relief, arguing that he failed to disclose everything he knew about

the conspiracy. Specifically, the government argued that Garza re-

fused to answer the following questions: (1) “From whom did he

obtain the methamphetamine?” (2) “How did he come into contact

with the supplier(s)?” (3) “What was the supplier’s phone number?”

(4) “What, if any, other numbers did the supplier(s) utilize?” (5)

“Where did Garza go to obtain the methamphetamine?” (6) “If it

was someone’s residence, where was it?” (7) “What did this resi-

dence look like?” (8) “Who else was in the residence?” (9) “Was

there any evidence of drug trafficking in the house, such as addi-

tional narcotics, money, firearms, or drug paraphernalia?” (10)

“What did Garza do with the money made from selling metham-

phetamine?” (11) “What bank accounts, if any, did he use to con-

ceal proceeds?” (12) “How was he able to pay for his antique Chevy

Caprice with aftermarket additions or his 2019 Dodge Hellcat

when [he] . . . had no reported income with the State of Florida

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 7

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13294

since 2017?” (13) “Why [we]re these cars registered in the name of

a family member?”

At sentencing, Garza argued that the unanswered questions

didn’t apply to the offenses of conviction. He argued that “the four

corners of this conspiracy began and ended with this sale” and that

there was “no evidence or information that during this conspiracy

there was yet another person who sourced the methampheta-

mine.” Garza contended that the unanswered questions related to

“previous conspiracies or previous drug sales that ha[d] nothing to

do with this conspiracy.” He maintained that this conspiracy con-

sisted of “three people”—Garza, the codefendant, and the confi-

dential informant—and that “[h]e was the source” of the metham-

phetamine “for this conspiracy.”

The government argued that Garza was indicted for conspir-

ing with “other persons, both known and unknown,” and that the

conspiracy included the unknown participants in Garza’s “chain of

distribution.” The government argued that Garza knew more

about where the methamphetamine came from and that he with-

held information from the government.

The district court agreed with the government. The district

court explained that Garza wasn’t “claiming that he actually [wa]s

the originator of the drugs.” “[T]he natural inference” from

Garza’s guilty plea to a conspiracy charge was that “he would be

able to say where he got his drugs from,” explained the district

court. Because Garza failed to disclose that information, the dis-

trict court found Garza ineligible for safety valve relief.

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 5 of 7

21-13294 Opinion of the Court 5

II.

We review the district court’s factual finding in denying

Garza’s safety valve relief for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106

F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997) (reviewing the district court’s find-

ing that the defendant didn’t provide a “complete and honest dis-

closure to the government” for clear error).

III.

Safety valve relief “allows for sentencing without regard to

any statutory minimum, with respect to certain offenses,” United

States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation

omitted), as long as the defendant satisfies the criteria established

in section 5C1.2, Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. Under section 5C1.2, “not

later than the time of the sentencing hearing,” the defendant must

“truthfully provide[] to the [g]overnment all information and evi-

dence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that

were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme

or plan.” § 5C1.2(a)(5).

We’ve called this part of section 5C1.2 the “tell all” provi-

sion. United States v. Johnson, 375 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004)

(cleaned up). “[T]o meet its requirements, the defendant has an

affirmative responsibility to ‘truthfully disclose to the government

all information and evidence that he has about the offense and all

relevant conduct.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The burden is on the

defendant to come forward and to supply truthfully to the govern-

ment all the information that he possesses about his involvement

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 6 of 7

6 Opinion of the Court 21-13294

in the offense, including information relating to the involvement

of others and to the chain of the [drug] distribution.” Cruz, 106

F.3d at 1557.

The district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Garza

didn’t “tell all” about the chain of methamphetamine distribution.

It was Garza’s burden to show that he disclosed to the government

everything he knew about the conspiracy and his possession and

distribution of the methamphetamine. See id. But Garza refused

to disclose anything about how he obtained the methampheta-

mine. While Garza argues that he disclosed everything he knew

about “this conspiracy” and that the source of the methampheta-

mine was part of “previous conspiracies or previous drug sales that

ha[d] nothing to do with this conspiracy,” we’ve already rejected a

similar argument. See United States v. Camacho, 261 F.3d 1071,

1073 (11th Cir. 2001). A defendant’s “refusal to reveal his source”

of the drugs after pleading guilty to a drug conspiracy offense dis-

qualifies him from safety valve relief for failing to “truthfully pro-

vide the government with all of the information he had concerning

the offense.” Id.

Section 5C1.2 requires disclosure of a broad range of infor-

mation, Johnson, 375 F.3d at 1302, and that information includes

details known to the defendant about the source of the drugs in a

drug conspiracy case, Camacho, 261 F.3d at 1073. Garza conceded

that he didn’t disclose information about the source of the meth-

amphetamine, so the district court’s finding that he failed to “tell

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 7 of 7

21-13294 Opinion of the Court 7

all” under section 5C1.2 was not clearly erroneous. That made

Garza ineligible for safety valve relief.

AFFIRMED.