Judicial fact-finding related to mandatory minimum safety valve provisions of sentencing guidelines is unaffected by Booker

APPEAL/SENTENCING United States v. Payton, No. 04-8054, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. May 4, 2005)(Wyoming). Appeal of sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. HELD: (1) Booker does not address judicial fact-finding necessary for determining whether sentence below mandatory minimum is warranted. Therefore, district court’s analysis of guidelines safety valve provisions at U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 will continue to be reviewed under pre-Booker clear error standard. (2) District court’s refusal to impose sentence below mandatory minimum through application of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)’s safety valve provision, based on judge-found fact under § 5C1.2 that defendant possessed firearm in connection with conspiracy, did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights under Booker. Booker does not prohibit all judicial fact-finding at sentencing. Rather, Booker only proscribes judicial fact-finding that increases a sentence beyond the maximum authorized by the jury verdict. Nothing in Booker decision suggests that judicial fact-finding to determine whether lower sentence than mandatory minimum is warranted implicates defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. Read the opinion here.