Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01490/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Becerra Montanez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1490

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Antonio Becerra Montanez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2007

Filed: March 1, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Montanez appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 500 grams of

a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. In

his timely appeal,Montanez argues that the district court erred in denying safety-valve

relief. He contends that, when a defendant offers no information, it is the

government’s burden to show there was information that could have been disclosed.

We reject this argument, and affirm Montanez’s sentence.

Appellate Case: 06-1490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2007 Entry ID: 3283469
2

It is undisputed that Montanez met all of the other safety-valve requirements.

(Appellee’s Br. at 6; Appellant’s Br. at 4.)

-2-

One of the criteria for safety-valve relief is that a defendant must truthfully

provide to the government “all information and evidence the defendant has concerning

the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common

scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).2

 The defendant carries the burden of

demonstrating that he has done so. See United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864

(8th Cir. 1998). Contrary to what Montanez suggests, this is not a case in which a

defendant had no information to give. Rather, the government reported to the district

court--and the court agreed with the government--that Montanez provided information

which was inconsistent with earlier statements he had made, and that he repeatedly

contradicted himself during his proffer interview. It was Montanez’s burden to show

affirmatively that the information he gave the government was truthful and complete,

see United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1096 (2006), and he failed to do so. The district court did not

clearly err in finding Montanez failed to meet the fifth requirement for safety-valve

relief. See United States v. Alarcon-Garcia, 327 F.3d 719, 721 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2007 Entry ID: 3283469