10-1384 U.S. v. Nunez

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Safety valve adjustment

Where the defendant was not fully cooperative in providing truthful information, the district court did not err in denying a safety valve adjustment to the mandatory minimum sentence.

“The government urged the district court to conclude that Nunez failed to satisfy the fifth requirement for safety valve eligibility based on two sources of evidence. First, the government argued that Nunez placed limits on the scope of his second debriefing, indicating that he failed to provide the government with all of the information he had concerning the charged offense. Second, the government argued that CI-1’s statement demonstrated both that Nunez lied, and that he failed to provide the government with enough information during his first debriefing to satisfy the fifth safety valve requirement. Based on the government’s arguments and the district court’s three explanations above, the district court arguably relied on both pieces of evidence.”

Affirmed.

10-1384 U.S. v. Nunez

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text