UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lillian COMPRES, Defendant, Raibwar Raouf, aka Camel, Defendant-Appellant, 614 F. App'x 36

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Raibwar Raouf appeals from the June 4, 2014 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J.) principally sentencing him to 120 months’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Raouf contends that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for being “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). “[W]e review a district court’s determination that a defendant deserves a leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1 de novo, but we review the court’s findings of fact supporting its conclusion only for clear error.” United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433, 449 (2d Cir.2009). “Under clear error review, we uphold findings of fact that are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” United States v.

Gonzalez, 764 F.3d 159, 165 (2d Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court found the two-level role enhancement appropriate here based on Raouf s supervision of three individuals:

(1) Lillian Compres,

(2) John Canneto, and (3) an unidentified individual known as “Ugly Jose.” With respect to Compres, Raouf challenges the district court’s factual finding that Compres knowingly assisted Raouf by obtaining money from a safety deposit box and bringing it to the failed drug transaction in the trunk of her car. We find no clear error. In reaching this determination, the district court relied on Compres’s sworn statements during a plea hearing regarding her role in the offense.

Although Raouf argues that Compres only made these statements in order to secure a more favorable sentence, the district court was aware of this possibility and nevertheless found Compres’s sworn statements credible. See Phoenix Global Ventures, LLC v. Phoenix Hotel Assocs., Ltd., 422 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir.2005) (“[Cjlear error review mandates that we defer to the district court’s factual findings, particularly those involving credibility determinations.”).

Similarly, Raouf has failed to show that the district court’s factual findings rely on the “practical impossibility” that Compres had sufficient time to conceal the funds. Given Agent Schatz’s testimony that concealing money in VCR shells would require minimal time, the district court’s version of the events is certainly “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Raouf s supervision of Compres is sufficient to support the two-level enhancement under

Section 3Bl.l(c). See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 223 (2d Cir.2005) (“[A] defendant need only manage or supervise a single other participant to warrant a § 3Bl.l(

c) enhancement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition, the application of the

Section 3Bl.l(

c) enhancement is a sufficient basis to reject Raouf s additional contention that the district court erred in denying him safety valve relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(4); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(4); see also U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, Application Note 5. Raouf also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence here was unjustly excessive in light of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, we have held that, in the absence of safety valve relief, a mandatory minimum sentence controls over the

Section 3553(

a) factors. See United States v. Samas, 561 F.3d 108, 110 (2d Cir.2009) (“[A] district court must impose a statutorily mandated sentence even if the court would reach a different determination if it considered only § 3553(a).”). Thus, because the district court was bound to impose the ten-year mandatory minimum, its sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carter, 696 F.3d 229, 230 (2d Cir.2012) (“[A] statutory mandatory minimum binds a sentencing court by explicitly providing a sentencing floor.”).

Finally, Raouf argues in his pro se supplemental brief that his conviction is invalid because it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This challenge is waived. “A defendant who pleads guilty unconditionally while represented by counsel may not assert independent claims relating to events occurring prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” United States v.

Coffin, 76 F.3d 494, 497 (2d Cir.1996). “[I]n order to reserve an issue for appeal after a guilty plea, a defendant must obtain the approval of the court and the consent of the government, and he must reserve the right to appeal in writing.” Id. Here, when pleading guilty, Raouf failed to reserve the right to raise his present challenge on appeal, unconditionally waiving the right to challenge his conviction regardless of the level of his sentence. In addition, at the change of plea proceedings, the district court confirmed Raoufs understanding of the nature of his plea.

Accordingly, his present challenge is waived. We have considered the remainder of Raoufs arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.