In United States v. Brown, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-50313 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court affirmed a sentence imposed following Marquis Brown’s guilty plea to importing methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 & 960.
On appeal, Brown argued that the district court committed a procedural error because it improperly enhanced his sentence in violation of the First Step Act of 2018. The First Step Act, which in part amended 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), prohibits district judges from using information disclosed by a defendant in a safety valve proffer to enhance a sentence, unless the information relates to a violent offense.
Here, during his safety valve proffer, Brown admitted to smuggling drugs on prior occasions. During the sentencing, the court cited this fact, and others, in imposing a sentence above what the government and probation recommended but below the Guidelines range. The district court stated it would be “a disingenuous exercise” to sentence Brown even to the 71 months requested by the Government, given the fact that Brown had smuggled drugs on prior occasions.
"We hold that the district court did not impose an improper sentence enhancement here . . . . It is clear that the district court considered information disclosed in the safety valve proffer to impose a sentence, such as Brown’s previous drug smuggling trips. This is not prohibited . . . . The sentencing court considered the safety valve information in conjunction with other mitigating and aggravating factors in its determination of a downward sentence variance. The district court imposed a sentence of 78 months—a sentence not just below the mandatory minimum, but also 30 months below the low end of Brown’s guidelines range. This does not constitute an enhancement."
The opinion, however, does not take the extra step of saying what would constitute an improper "enhancement."
