Sentencing — safety-valve adjustment

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — safety-valve adjustment

Where a defendant was not truthful during his safety-valve debriefings, the district court properly denied him a sentence below the mandatory minimum.

“A defendant cannot meet his burden under the safety valve if the government challenges the ‘truthfulness, accuracy, or completeness’ of his information and he ‘does not produce anything to persuade the district court that his submissions are truthful and complete.’ United States v. Nunez, 627 F.3d 274, 280 (7th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Martinez, 301 F.3d 860, 866 (7th Cir. 2002). The district court recognized that Acevedo-Fitz’s letter was not a complete disclosure and instead represented the ‘bare minimum’ he was ‘willing to sign on for.’ A defendant is not entitled to the safety valve when he provides only limited information instead of complete disclosure. See Nunez, 627 F.3d at 282 (noting that district court’s decision not to apply safety valve could be upheld based solely on defendant’s decision to limit discussion topics during debriefing); United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997) (safety-valve burden not met when statement contained denials and little information concerning commission of offense). Moreover, even in those circuits where prior lies are not deemed to be evidence of bad faith, the sentencing court may take those lies into account in deciding if the defendant’s current statements are truthful. See Aidoo, 670 F.3d at 610; Brownlee, 204 F.3d at 1305; see also United States v. Galvon-Manzo, 642 F.3d 1260, 1269–70 (10th Cir. 2011) (concluding that district court properly relied on defendant’s two prior untruthful interviews when concluding safety valve did not apply, even though defendant filed last-minute affidavit). Acevedo-Fitz’s lack of cooperation during his safety-valve debriefings and his resistance to admitting irrefutable offense conduct caused the government to challenge the completeness and truthfulness of his later written disclosures, a challenge that could not be countered with a bare assertion that his May 2013 letter was complete and truthful. See Montes, 381 F.3d at 637. And since Acevedo-Fitz did nothing more than that, he did not meet his burden under § 3553(f).”

Affirmed.

13-2424 U.S. v. Acevedo-Fitz

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Flaum, J.