Denial of Safety-Valve Relief Affirmed

U.S. v. Altamirano-Quintero, 2007 WL 4554290 (12/28/07)(Published) - While it would have been error for the d.ct. to deny a safety valve adjustment solely because the defendant refused to debrief, the d.ct. did not require a debriefing, as the defendant claimed. Rather, the d.ct. did not clearly err in finding the defendant failed to provide a complete disclosure, as required by § 3553(f)(5). There were "obvious informational gaps" in the defendant's plea admissions, e.g. how and where he got the meth or what he intended to do with it and most importantly who were the other participants. The government had not conceded the defendant's satisfaction of (f)(5), even though the plea agreement said: "the parties believe ... all relevant conduct is disclosed ... and the stipulated facts account for all sentencing factors." That provision established that the parties had set the parameters of the criminal activity about which the defendant was supposed to provide all the information he had. It did not say the defendant had provided that information, in light of the fact that the safety valve possibility was mentioned in a different provision of the agreement, and the relied-upon provision was standard in every plea agreement in the district.

In a concurrence, Judge Holmes criticizes the majority for reaching the plea agreement question because, regardless of whether the government conceded safety valve or not, it was up to the d.ct. to make the final decision and the d.ct. was justified in making its safety valve finding. Judge Holmes bemoans the majority's refusal to look at the agreement from the defendant's reasonable perspective [e.g. how is the defendant supposed to know the provision in question was a standard provision?], and does not resolve ambiguities against the government.