leave however the government asserted that mr mcveigh was not eligible under five c one two a five because of his proffer and later testimony that blaze harding had offered to sell him firearms and that mr harding had later bragged about putting those firearms on someone else and that these statements were untruthful however the plain language of five c one point two five only requires that a defendant testify truthfully as to his own relevant conduct here that would be the relevant conduct to mr mcveigh's distribution of methamphetamine conviction the district court interpretation expanded the standard definition of relevant conduct to include unrelated criminal that involving other individuals and not conduct by mr mcveigh this requires a st for mandatory sentencing first i think it's necessary to address the standard of review the standard of review here is to know the government treats us as though mr as though the district court determined that relevant conduct was the proper definition for analyzing whether truthful statements were required for safety valve relief and just simply found that this was relevant conduct that's not what the district court did the district court stated it was engaging in an interpretation of the guidelines and determined that it was that this provision a five what's much broader than relevant conduct anything kind of relating to this world of drug trafficking the offense of conviction broader than the definition of relevant conduct so because it's a question of guideline interpretation if you is to know all but i think either way you look at it whether it's commentary the plain language of the guideline uses that standard offense or offenses course of conduct and then the guideline commentary no three further indicates that when they use this language as is used throughout the guidelines what the commission means is relevant conduct so that's what i'm relying upon primarily for this argument that it is limited to relevant conduct and i in fact think the government agrees that it is limited to relevant conduct was i don't think the district or analyze this just under the definition of relevant conduct what the district court was doing was doing this comparison with the obstruction guideline and saying well that says offensive conviction that's narrower distributing methamphetamine there were some similar players but that's not enough to put it within the relevant context guideline your honor look have a week sort of consistently said the guns are sort of the tool of the trade to drug distribution and therefore why when that's always been relevant come i think if this were actions taken by mr harding right if this was an answer where is information where you said i didn't have a gun and it turned out to be truthful that he did have a god or if it involved his own conduct then it would fall within relevant conduct but this does it make a difference that these are distribution manufacturing charges rather than conspiracy charges because you know it seems to me that an argument can be advanced that when one looks to have had a conspiracy of coconspirators are involved in drugs is the object of the conspiracy and guns are tools of the trade in the drug trafficking business that becomes a budgie easier case to say it all ties together for relevant conduct but now we've got a distribution that's not a conspiracy so in theory at least all the people involved in this are just people were  seller relationships right does the does the analogy of the guns as tools of the trade break down at all i think if it were a conspiracy my argument would be a little bit more difficult  this case like as the commentary to the relevant conduct guideline discusses even when you're talking about joint criminal conduct this appears to be a criminal enterprise where they might have had some overlap they might have had similar suppliers  you know they all knew each other but the commentary indicates that's not enough and this wasn't wasn't a conspiracy they sometimes had the same supplier that wasn't charged that way and i don't think it's started to beat out way  conduct by that authentic something that's foreseeable something that he was even just aware of spirit it's not criminal conduct by that offend your argument to read out the phrase common scheme or plan so common scheme or plan to the offense that he pled guilty to mr mcveigh pled guilty to one distribution of methamphetamine connection there's nothing indicating that he ever used firearms or that he used firearms in connection with his  of methamphetamine so this wasn't like can't be limited to just himself cannot with a common scheme or plan language it's not just limited to himself but it's only encapsulates other people if there's that choice criminal conduct and this doesn't meet the definition of joint criminal conduct this as proper testimony and his later testimony indicated this that wasn't that they were dealing drugs in this instance and then  mr harding was like had this fire if you want to buy it it's an indication that they were all around together someone was working on a car and mr harding said hey i have a firearm do you want to buy it and he said no that's not indicating it's part of a drug transaction or it's just part and parcel with his underlying offense it's just a separate instance that's not related to the conduct he pled guilty to do you suppose it was that suit his are the false statements in some way connected to the prosecution and is and as a dad gives conduct i mean you know in the real world what we're dealing with here is the judge found that this is never happened so we're sort of a pretend away and we're saying well somehow involved with him in the distribution of these controlled substances in order to shift the blame from one person to another now i think we're talking about his conduct i think that blurs the line between what gets someone  five k and what gets someone the two level reduction under the guidelines and i think that this require erred in doing that the guidelines the reason and the the motivation for the two level reduction is simply being truthful about what you did your criminal conduct and mr mcveigh was and you know it's intended to give a reduction to these low level nonviolent offenders who come before the law enforcement and testify truthfully about what they personally did  irrelevant if it helps the prosecution if it leads to further prosecutions if they already knew all the information it doesn't matter because that's not the basis for that guideline now that makes complete sense for talking about a five k or just was analysis a defendant could say i sold drugs on eighteen occasions without identifying who sold me to worry got a for that doesn't mean five c one point too i see one point two or wires all information about the offense a conviction two says those are findings that need to be made so those are factual findings by the court is never a crime committed alone it's always crimes committed with other persons in concert with one another so when you get one is describing what they did there necessarily driving what others did in this case the defendant said that his sources of supply were katie and blaze harder that he also said that blaze harding would sometimes sell drugs for katie when katie wasn't available so he actually described conspira relationships whether it's true or not the way he described it there was a conspiracy involving those individuals fire herbs are tools of the drug trade and clearly are either used protect oneself protect ones proceeds protect drugs or and tell the truth about it and that's where it where the defendant fell short he failed to tell the truth what is the mischief in that this honesty or terms of its impact on the ability of law enforcement to hold individuals responsible for their actions well really five c one dollar doesn't doesn't rely on whether we can also responsible or not it requires a requirement for the defendant to affirmatively tell the truth about everything it knows and whether it's useful or not is really irrelevant it's a requirement for the defendant to develop truth and that's where the defendant fit because you know as the court noted he describes you know two firearms on one  r medium medium build guy this mr evans testified in court before the district court judge in mr carter's trial that once but twice that description in no way mask him at all he was a tall thin man with very long hair very distinctive no way that the defendant was dylan truth about that and those kinds of lies where he's trying to engage in behavior talking about is conduct with is one of his alleged drug sources mr harding it never it will not meet that requirement or fifty one point two to be provide complete truthful information in order to get to of reduction so we would suggest the district work he's describing drug trafficking activities by mr harding that's clearly part of his defense of conviction because if he's buying drugs from harding that in theory would be trivial to him for purposes of base offense level but as he's to when we're talking about relevant conduct when we're talking about the guidelines it's always about the defendant's conduct so even if we're talking about common scheme you know course of conduct it's about the defendant common scheme it's about the defendant's course of conduct and of course that a defendant can be subject to enhanced minutes for another person's conduct but only if she was involved in some way not just present if  he didn't abetted it or if it was part of the joint criminal conduct here it was simply a person who was also a drug dealer offering a firearm which he declined that is not conduct by the defendant it's not conduct he aided and ab d and it's not any kind of joint criminal conduct because it's limited to him and he was only required to testify truthfully as to what he did the false statements found by the district court do not bar him from safety