has as indicated in the person's report of a very well established work history he's worked in construction is worked in janitorial he's paid his taxes he'd been in some minor trouble before  but no serious criminal activity before he got caught up in this case he's generally a guy that files rules but he did make a very bad decision he agreed to drive a vehicle that had methamphetamines in it from arizona home on of rask of four thousand dollars is you know since the time after his jailhouse interview he has always represented that that's that's the nature of what he did wrong this guy is they distrusted me oh he's not a part of this underlying criminal organisation is minimal knowledge of the people that are involved and what's going on at his safety valve hearing st of all of course he had a safety valve interview th t involved officer rock officer rock concluded that the mr civilities was not honest and in that interview in his opinion and like the case earlier today the only thing in question is the th prong in fact there's a stipulation on the record that the other four prongs are satisfied and what do we do with the fact that judge your are your man was not credible i mean so that's i understood finding isn't that the finding that you're challenging oh well i am i'm challenging the determination of the south safety valve doesn't apply in this case and the problem jose sent to follow him here because he's so distrusted by this organization you know i would i would suggest the court that jose is is code language for mind your own business is the guy at a party he didn't have ongoing contact with these people the police had his fung they had the data in his phone that he was traveling with they didn't present any kind of evidence that he had contact with anyone else it's just that officer rock asserted that mr savant days wasn't honest in the interview only because of the jailhouse interview didn't point to any other interpose a lot about that judge gerard relied on that too he said in the post arrest interview survived as a den of five various people and then later he said he didn't know who they were and that's that's not i wouldn't agree with that characterization and i would i would say the court here that he did give a last name for jose previously at the jailhouse interview and then he later clarified that he didn't actually know this was a guy's last name  and my point is that there's nothing sort of in between the jailhouse interview and his his safety valve interview where there's other inconsistency so his petition to enter a plea is consistent with the safety valve interview his statement the facts of to probation for the p s r is consistent with his safety valve interview so everything after that jailhouse interviews consistent up and up until the time of of of his safety valve interview and the problem is is you know he can't even easily prove a negative he can't prove that he doesn't know these other people and the government doesn't necessarily have any obligation whatsoever to produce evidence or a deuce evidence at the hearing that the safety valve interview was not honest or was in some fashion  incomplete however in every other case that i can find there's something in the record that shows the person was lyon and in fact even the case today mr mcgee was pointing to things in the in the record that demonstrated why the government believed that the defendant in that case wasn't being honest there's just nothing here in this case this this film and all the ever his only involvement ever was to drive his vehicle here there's nothing else an officer rocks investigation that he points to that says why no you're lying because when we talk to you know these people they said that you did this on whatever this other occasion is well or that i know that you know this other person that was involved and you didn't admit to me that you know that person and i know that because of an interview with valdez or because of the data on your cell phone they don't point to anything they just say well at the jail he said something different while at the jail he's scared out of his mind he's high on drugs and you know i don't think he even knows what he's doing he's just he's scared he wants to get away from the police he wants to get out of out of out of the the situation isn't it's not going to happen but at that time whatever comes out of his mouth comes out of his mouth he has many many months to sit in jail and and think about this and come clean and tell what he knows it's not his fault that he doesn't have a great deal of information about the criminal enterprise if he got pulled over rather than if he hadn't ran out of gas and stopped at this gas station and his codefendant came to assist him with the problem of being out of gas the government never could have figured out who anyone in this thing involved was because m didn't know i think they only got as far as they got because valdez was involved in this arrest i mean she was also arrested she's the person that was essentially sent as surveillance to sure that he got to town to make sure he did what he agreed to do he was not interested to do this on as you know by implication that's got to stablish that these these people they're demonstrating that they don't know him they don't trust it they don't trust them to do this themselves and so i think that the court has errantly interpreted the statute to read in a requirement that a's provide useful information because that's what the judge wanted to know and he says on the record i don't care about these inconsistency that you're bringing up what i care about is who is who is this guy who is the guy that owns the dough or that the in charge of everything he just doesn't know that in there's nothing in the record there's nothing anywhere on the record to suggest that he should know that there's there's no testimony there's no proper there's no other safety valve interview there's nothing the probation found if nothing else there that's inconsistent with him telling the government i was a mule and i don't really know who everybody else was i there are new questions i'll save the rest of my time for a bow thank you very well to ask that you affirm the decision of the district court done by judge her ard defendant does raise three arguments in his brief however i think they can all be dispelled which just one argument and that is whether or made a credibility finding of mr bott tases that he was not credible conversant he found mr rock was credible based on his testimony and just to talk about these inconsistency is what mr gerard said he found that some of the it consistencies were minor that he wasn't put much weight into for instance where he picked up the truck or who whether what whether it was from jose or his wife but what judge george found it was significant  was the fact that mr survive taste during his initial post arrest interview had given a specific information such as he is the one that said yeah i was transporting five pounds of methamphetamine weight an amount or a weight in type at the safety valve interview he said i don't know how much i don't know of what after some haggling back and forth he finally completes his ok i you're right i did admit it was methamphetamine but i don't know how much so  investigator rock shows mr survive this photo as the people that were involved and this is based on what mr survive tases telling them this isn't what mr talked about a person by the name of and i was get this wrong to cop a zone as the person i was paying him so food was the one that made arrangements copplestone was the one that was paying him and jose marcus my friend jose marcus is the one who gave me the drugs this was very specific information offered by mr survive and as the investigation went forward and the properties were done and then ultimately resulting in forgets that he already told the officers that his name was jose marcus one thing i would like to point out specifically is that mr survived his did not do a very good job of going back and looking at information that he had already provided to the government to refresh his memory from the safety valve and of the safety at the sentencing hearing he even admitted he doesn't remember anything from the from the initial interview the information that he'd given so when he comes back and he starts talking about it you know it's one of those things where we push the pin down like wow we're we're going backwards here what's going on and as we get into investigators kept trying to flush out information it was different parts of it significance parts of it minor and then we get to the sentencing hearing it's the same thing counsel let me ask you a question that about an issue here that raises some concern if you think about the safety valve process of the safety valve interview as information provided in this in the safety valve interview and information that the defendant may have provided earlier in the in the investigation is that really a good is that really what we want to use and as the reason that safety valve relief is is denied if somebody does provide it consistencies in an earlier statement they are given the opportunity to correct those statements it does happen a lot that people do give information is not correct me really is that almost by definition that this is this is what's going to happen not necessarily just because you give an inconsistent statement there's no especially at an end or an earlier interview it does not preclude somebody before sentencing from giving a truthful statement in fact the safety valve bias definition itself is as it makes that guarantee that prior to that his sentencing you can give a truthful statement it does happen all the time that people give inconsistent statements at the beginning and then come forth later and say yeah i was lying the difference between this and that bread stands for him to come forward and say there were five pounds of methamphetamine in this truck and i guess what there was five pounds of methamphetamine in this truck and then he comes by and says you know i don't know what i was transporting and i don't know what it was in there that's that's not somebody that is the original information was accurate and then you come back later and say would that was just a guess that he got that right or that inconsistent statement  the or the st one was inconsistent statements parks that it was true or i understand you're saying judge but the bottom line is what investigator rock testified also was during open in addition an initial investigation it's more likely that we might get different information however a proffer interview you have your attorney there you have assurances or some protections by the proffer letter that's usually given by the government which was done in this case so that that point the information is more likely to be true in this particular case the inconsistency is that he was giving were pretty clearing and that's why when you get to the district court as sentencing and and judge two hours here this information i get it that's why he came to the credibility finding it's just it was incredible and it wasn't just some of the ones i cited i mean there were there was a litany of inconsistenc even in particular other than inconsistency is what what were the statements that are simply contradicted by independent investigation or independent facts that are  for example did he in the in the safety valve interview did he make a statement about him how much how much drugs were there that's contradicted by for example law enforcement seizing and weighing the drugs ok i don't know that's that's just an example that comes to mind but you get we'll get you get what i'm citing but it interviewed at your own question because that's a perfect example of something that was corroborated by the investigation itself was something that he said sentencing and then denies that he said that the st place so that is information they provided that was cooperated in addition as i mentioned earlier this investigation didn't occur to vacuum they knew who this  they were sure if this was food or coppers or covers on them which one it was so when mr savant taze then does approach and say yes this food that's him in that photograph that's information that was cooperating what law enforcement already knew so then it was kind of awkward then later when he has back and says he actually i don't know who food is he's the one that provided that name he's the one to provide the name  folks were they did exist so then he comes forward says i know who they are like ok great we know who we are too which one is it he says is that one and then later says yeah i i don't know who that was i just made it up or something along those lines that buys scared for haps so again it's not so much that the information that he later forgot was incorrect it's he just tonight knowing it all together he's p forgot he'd already provide that information seeing that my time is up if the court does have any further  this is a little bit difficult to do in in this regard as we keep talking about the jailhouse interview neither side so that in anything other than what each you know what basically what officer rocks occurred in the jailhouse interview what's wrong with that and he recounted what happened the judge said he was credible so unless you can underwrite his credibility that's the jailhouse interview and i guess  guess where i'm at with it is he was showed a picture at that interview i hadn't given any names he was showed a picture and they said do you know who this is and he said yeah that's food and then at their prompting asking him what food did food do this did food do that he used agreed with them he didn't come up with cabazon i'm sorry respectfully disagree with mr carboy the officers were asking about cavazos and he said i don't know who that is i don't know you talk about yeah i've met that guy before that guy has food but he didn't what did he say the least was the testimony that at the initial jailhouse interview he had then a five food as the person who who had contacted him and arranged for him to make the delivery i think that's what officer rock testified to rock also says that survived his said that cabin zone was going to pay him for the delivery we're met with this is is that they're they're picking losers and winners from these these safety valve interviews and these people are not in a position to prove the negative they're not a position to prove that they don't have that knowledge again the only inconsistency is from that st interview the other cases that i've seen there been multiple inconsistences along the way to that safety valve interview and there's been other stuff in the record to indicate that they're aligned even f the government's not put the evidence or put the burden of that evidence there's still in every case there's something there that she why do you need additional independent evidence if you have a very swear the defendant acknowledges knowing certain things and then turns around and always hafitz they always tell a different story at the jail when they're st arrested so i don't know if that really matters what part of the story is different what i do know is that judge broad was only concerned with my client mr savant days identifying who the lead person in this criminal organization was he didn't know the guy that he just drove the truck here and my time is up and i thank you very much very well thank you for your argument casey submitted in the