The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the 120-month total sentence of James Dorelus, who argued his sentence violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause by punishing him twice for the same firearm.
In a per curiam opinion filed on October 10, 2025, the appellate panel -- comprised of Circuit Judges Branch, Anderson, and Hull -- unanimously rejected Dorelus's appeal (Case No. 25-10296), which challenged the denial of a sentencing reduction, often called "safety valve relief," on his drug conviction.
James Dorelus pleaded guilty to two counts stemming from an FBI investigation involving multiple controlled purchases of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between September 2023 and May 2024.
Count 6: Possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (fentanyl). Count 7: Possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
The district court sentenced Dorelus to a mandatory-minimum 60 months on the drug distribution charge (Count 6) and a mandatory, consecutive 60 months on the firearm charge (Count 7), resulting in a total sentence of 120 months (10 years).
The dispute centered on the district court's refusal to grant Dorelus safety valve relief on his drug conviction. This relief allows a judge to impose a sentence lower than the statutory mandatory minimum if a defendant meets five specific criteria. Dorelus failed to qualify for this relief because the law explicitly excludes defendants who "possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon" in connection with the offense.
The Double Jeopardy Argument
Dorelus argued that since the firearm was the basis for his separate, consecutive 60-month sentence in Count 7, using the same firearm possession to deny him safety valve relief for his Count 6 drug sentence constituted "double counting and double jeopardy." He contended this resulted in being punished twice for the same conduct.
The Eleventh Circuit, however, disagreed with this interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Appeals Court Ruling
The Eleventh Circuit, reviewing the claim de novo (anew), held that denying a sentence reduction based on criminal conduct does not constitute a "punishment" in the context of double jeopardy.
Citing Supreme Court precedent (Witte v. United States), the court reiterated that a sentencing court is permitted to consider a defendant's character and conduct -- including other criminal activity -- when determining a sentence for the instant offense.
"Consideration of offender-specific information or prior criminal conduct at sentencing," the court wrote, "does not result in 'punishment' that offends the Double Jeopardy Clause."
The panel concluded that the district court was simply considering Dorelus's firearm possession to determine his eligibility for a sentencing benefit (safety valve relief) on his drug conviction (Count 6), even though he was already being sentenced for the firearm crime itself (Count 7). This use of the information, the court ruled, was not a double punishment for the same statutory crime.
The court further dismissed Dorelus's technical argument that the indictment charged "carrying" rather than "possessing" the firearm, noting that in his factual proffer to the plea agreement, Dorelus conceded the government would have proven he "possessed" the 9mm pistol during the drug transaction.
Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the original 120-month total sentence, concluding that the denial of safety valve relief based on firearm possession did not violate Dorelus's Fifth Amendment rights.
READ: Laundry Day Of Horror: Florida Woman Kills Husband With Billy Club, Tries To Wash Away The Evidence
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Login To Facebook To Comment