FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 64 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 04 80 -J DW -AEP-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MATTHEW

DAVID JAMES, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r pl ead in g g ui lty , Mat th ew Dav idJames ap pe al s h is co nc urren t 6 0-
m on th sen te nc es foron e co un t o f co ns pi racy to m anuf actur e an d p os se ss within te ntto di st rib ut e 1 00 or m or e m ari juan a p lant s, i n v io lati on of 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 46 , 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(B) (v ii ) (Co un t 1 ), an d o ne co un t o f m anuf actur in g a nd po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te anun sp eci fie d qua nt ity of m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C) (Co un t 2 ). Afterrev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND FACTS A. Reque st for Sa fety -Va lv e Rel ie f Ja m es pl edgu il ty to b ot h c ou nt s ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. Acco rd in g t o th e fi na l p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), Ja m es ’s to ta l o ffen se lev el was 17 an d h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory was I, wh ic h re su lt edinanadvi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 2 4 t o 3 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Ho wev er, b ecau se Co un t 1
carr ie d am an da to ry

m in im um fiv e-year sen te nc e p ur su an t t o 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (v ii ), th e PSI n ot edth atJames’s advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge be cam e 60 m on th s. See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (c)( 2) . The PSI di d n otad dr es s J am es ’s el ig ib il ity forsaf ety -v al ve rel ie f fro m

th e fi ve -y ear m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2.

2Ja m es fil eda se nt en ci ng m em or an du m ask in g fo r sa fety -v al ve rel ie f, an d, i f gr an te d, a d own wardva ria nc e fro m th e advi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge . Jam es ’s 1
m em or an du m

st at edth atth e g ov ern m en t b el ie ve d h e h adno t b eentru th fu l ab ou t th e “parti ci pa ti on of an uni nd ic te d i nd iv idua l” inJames’s m ari juan a g ro win g op erat io n, b utth atJames “ ha [d ] no kn owl ed ge reg ard in g the pa rti ci pa ti on of t hi s in di vi du al inth e o ffen se ” an d tha t h e h adpro vi de d t he go ve rn m en t wi th tru th fu l in fo rm at io n. Inth e PSI’s a dd en du m , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er re sp on de d t ha t J am es was in el ig ib le fora sa fety -v al ve reduc ti on be cau se , acco rd in g t o t he go ve rn m en t, h e ha d n otpro vi de d the go ve rn m en t wi th “ al l i nf orm at io n a ndev id en ce co nc ern in g th e o ffen se or o ffen se s tha t wer e p artof t he same cours e o f co nduc t o r of a co m m on sch em e o r pl an .” B. Ado pti on of Co -Defe nda nt Br ow n’s Mot io n to Decl ar e § 8 41 (b)( 1) (B)( vi i) Unc on st itu tio na l Pri orto sen te nc in g, J am es ’s co- de fen da ntMi ch ael Bro wn fi le d a“ Mo ti on to Decl are M an da to ry

Mi ni m um Sen te nc in g P ro vi si onof 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (v ii ) Unc on st itut io na l an d t o Impos e a Sen te nc e Bel ow the

Acc ordingto J ames’s se ntencingmemorandum, the initial PSIrec ommended that James 1 rec eive sa fety-valve relief , but the PSIwas re vised afte r the g overnme nt contended that J ames was inelig ible beca

use he ha d not been truthful in providingthe g overnme nt with information about his offe nses. 3Oth erwi se App li cab le Mi ni m um Sen te nc e.” J am es m ov edto ad op t Br own ’s
m ot io n, wh ic h a rg ue d tha t: (1) th e g ov ern m en t was sel ect iv el y pro se cu ti ng m ari juan a o ffen de rs be cau se th e U.S. Att orne y Gene ral ha d a nn ou nc eda po li cy of
no t p ro se cu ti ng m ari

juan a d is tri bu to rs who were n otvi ol at in g t he ir r es pe ct iv e st at e’s la ws; (2) in di vi du al s wh o wer e si m il arl y si tu at edto hi m

bu t wh o wer e lo cat edinst at es th atha d d ereg ul at edm ari juan a were n otbe in g p ro se cu te d und er th e Co nt ro ll edSubs tanc es Act an d, thu s, were no t s ub ject t o t he m an da to ry m in im um in§ 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (v ii ); ( 3) th e g ov ern m en t’s s el ect iv e p ro se cu ti on of
m ari juan a o ffen de rs vi ol at edhi s equa l p ro te ct io n a nddu e p ro ces s ri gh ts an d t he Ten thAm en dm en t; (4) be cau se th e g ov ern m en t was de ferr in g t o s ta te law i n de te rm in in g wh om

to pro se cu te , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d d eferto st at e la w in
se nt en ci ng th os e th e g ov ern m en t d eci de d t o p ro se cu te ; an d (5 ) un de r Fl or id a la w, Bro wn wo ul d n otbe subjec t t o afiv e-year m an da to ry min im um sen te nc e. Bro wn at ta ch eda co py of anOcto be r 19 , 20 09 m em or an du m fro m Depu ty Att orne y Gene ral Davi d Og de n s ta ti ng , in te r al ia , th atin ve st ig at in g a nd pr os ecu ti ng in di vi du al s wh os e act io ns were i n c le ar an d u na m bi gu ou s co m

pl ianc e with s ta te laws all owi ng forth e m ed ic al us e o f m ari juan a wou ldno t b e th e m os t effi ci en t u se of f

ed eral go ve rn m en t re so ur ces , bu t tha t, ev eninth os e st at es ,

4pr os ecu ti on of c omm erci al en te rp ris es th atun lawfu ll y m ark etan d s el l m ari

juan a fo r pr of itco nt in ue d t o b e anen fo rcem en t p rio rit y . W itho utrul in g o n J am es ’s m ot io n t o a do ptBro wn’s m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt d en ie d B ro wn’s m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at : (1 ) Bro wn h adwaiv edhi s s el ect iv e pr os ecu ti on an d C omm erce Claus e arg um en ts by ple ad in g g ui lty ; (2 ) th e go ve rn m en t’s p ro se cu to ria l p ol ic y di d n otvi ol at e th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e as ap pl ie d t o B ro wn b ecau se th ere was a rat io na l b as is fordi st in gu is hi ng be twee n th os e st at es th atde cri m in al iz edm ed ic al us e o f m ari juan a an d t ho se st at es th atha d
no t, an d B ro wn “ is no t s im il arl y si tu at edwith i nd iv idua ls who po ss es s m ari juan a fo r m ed ic al us e in st at es whi chha ve de cri m in al iz edth atus e”; an d (3 ) § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (v ii ) is no t fa ci al ly unc on st itut io na l b ecau se th ere i s a r at io na l b as is fo r im po si ng a m or e se ve re p un is hm en t fo r hi gh er dru g qua nt it ie s. C. Sent enci ng At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d J am es ’s m ot io n t o a do pt Bro wn’s m ot io n t o d ecl are § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (v ii ) un co ns ti tu ti on al , bu t the n d en ie d th e m ot io n b ecau se James ha d wai ve d a ny sel ect iv e p ro se cu ti on arg um en t b y pl ead in g g ui lty . W ith re sp ectto James’s sa fety -v al ve reque st , th e p rimary is su e was whet he r Ja m es ha d b eentru th fu l ab ou t the in vo lv em en t o f Car lo Co lu cci inth e m ari juan a 5gr owi ng op erat io n. Co lu cci own edth ree o f th e h om es inwhi chJames an d c ode fen da ntBro wn g rew m ari juan a, an d J am es an d B ro wn h adwork edforCo lu cci ’s ni gh tc lub fo r y ears . Ja m es tes ti fie d tha t, t o h is kn owl ed ge , Col uc ci di d n otrece iv e an y m ari juan a o r m on ey

fro m th e m ari juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n a ndth athe ha d t ol d Tim ot hy Lutz, the Drug Enfo rcem en t Ag en cy ’s cas e ag en t i n t he in ve st ig at io n, ab ou t ev eryone in vo lv edinth e o pe rat io n. Du rin g h is de br ie fin g, J am es to ld Age ntLut z, in te r al ia , th at : (1 ) co -d efen da ntBro wn, an d n otJames, pa idCo lu cci
ren t; (2) James was pri m ari ly resp on si bl e fo r gr owi ng th e m ari juan a in th e h ou se s, Bro wn was pri m ari ly resp on si bl e fo r se ll in g t he m ari juan a, an d t he two m en sh aredth e p ro ceed s; (3) Bro wn d idno t t el l J am es to who m he so ldth e m ari

juan a; (4 ) bo th James an d B ro wn s ol d m ari juan a to Zoe Pl aci ot is , us ua ll y be twee n t wo an d fi ve po un ds ev ery two to si x wee ks ; (5 ) Ja m es was aware tha t Br own so ld
m ari juan a to Pet er J am es (Defen da ntJames’s br ot he r), Ang el o Hurit os , Jay Sin gh
an d B il ly Sum

m ers (Zoe Pla ci ot is ’s bo y fri en d) ; (6 ) Jam es be li ev edth atth e m ajor ity of t he m ari

juan a th ey

gre w wentto Huri to s; an d (7 ) to James’s kn owl ed ge , Col uc ci di d n otrece iv e ei th er m ari juan a o r an y

of t he pro ceed s fr om th e m ari juan a sa le s.

6Age ntLut z te st ifi ed , in te r al ia , th atva rio us m em be rs of t he m ari

juan a gr owi ng op erat io n p ro vi de d i nf orm at io n t ha t co nt rad ic te d wh atJames sa iddu rin g hi s d eb rie fin g. Fro m

in te rv ie ws wi thot he rs , Agen t Lu tz lea rn edth atZoe Pl aci ot is , Bil ly Sum

m ers , Pet er J am es an d An ge lo Huri to s s tarte d o uthe lp in g Defen da ntJames an d B ro wn wi th th ei r gr owi ng op erat io ns an d b uyin g s m al l
am ount s o f m ari

juan a fro m

th em , bu t, o ve r ti m e, Ja m es an d B ro wn h el pe d t he m be gi n the ir o wn m ari

juan a g ro win g o pe rat io ns . Zoe Pl aci ot is an d B il ly Sum m ers op erat edon e g ro w ho us e an d P et er J am es an d An ge lo Huri to s o pe rat edtwo gro w ho us es . If on e g ro up ne ed edm ari juan a an d was ou t, an ot he r gr oup wo ul d s up pl y th em , bu t “ itwasn ’t where an y bo dy was b uyin g the who le sh ip m en t.” Ba se d o n Age ntLut z’s cal cu la ti on s as to th e av erag e am ou ntof m ari juan a th e g ro w ho us es pr oduc ed , Agen t Lu tz di d n otth in k J am es an d B ro wn wer e se ll in g m os t o f th ei r m ari juan a to Paci ot is an d S umm ers or P et er J am es an d Hu rit os . Age ntLut z id en ti fie d the fol lo win g i nf orm at io n fr om

ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s tha t in di cat edJames ha d n otacco un te d fo r a l arg e am ou ntof t he m ari juan a sa le s an d th atJames an d B ro wn h adon e m ai n b uyer, pro babl y Co lu cci , who m

James was refu si ng to id en ti fy : (1 ) Pl aci ot is an d S umm ers to ldLut z th ey ha d o ve rh eard Ja m es an d B ro wn re ferr in g t o “ th ei r gu y ,” who was “ on e g uy who was tak in g the
m ajor ity ” o f th ei r m ari

juan a; (2) Pla ci ot is ne ve r sa w Jam es or B ro wn h an d

7m ari

juan a to Co lu cci , bu t s he be li ev edBro wn an d J am es were re ferr in g t o Co lu cci ; (3 ) Hur it os als o o ve rh eardJames an d B ro wn d is cu ss in g the ir “ on e m ai n gu y ” an d wh enHuri to s as ke d P et er J am es ab ou t i t, Pe te r sa idth ey were re ferr in g to Co lu cci ; (4 ) Pl aci ot is di d n otth in k Def en dantJames ev er ac tu al ly w orke d fo r Co lu cci ’s ni gh tc lub; (5) Huri to s ad m it te d a ccep ti ng m on ey fro m Pet er J am es an d th enHuri to s’s b us in es s i ss ue d P et er p ay ch eck s s o i t l oo ke d l ik e Pet er h ad le gi ti m at e em

pl oym en t; an d (6 ) Hur it os be li ev edDefen dantJames ha d asi m il ar arra ng em en t wi th Co lu cci
. The di stric t co urt ad vi se d Def en da ntJames th atitsu sp ect edhe kn ew m or e th anhe ha d t ol d Ag en t Lu tz an d c al le d ash ort re ces s. Whenth e h eari ng res um ed , Ja m es in si st edth athe ha d tru th fu ll y in fo rm edAgen t Lu tz th atth e m ajor ity of t he
m ari juan a h e an d B ro wn g rew wen t t o Hu rit os . The d is tri ctco urt n ot edth at Defen da ntJames ha d the bu rd enof p ro of an d t ha t the co urt d idno t “ jus t ac cep t th e g ov ern m en t’s re pr es en ta ti on , parti cu larly whenit ’s a si tu at io n wh ere t he ag en t is ba si ng hi s o pi ni on an d d et erm in at io n o n h is expe rie nc e an d u nd ers tand in g fr om ot he r co op erat in g d efen da nt s, an d yousi m pl y say, well, you d on ’t kn ow.” Howev er, the di st ric t co urt fo un d Def en da ntJames’s cla im s tha t h e d idno t kno w to who m Bro wn was sel li ng th ei r m ari juan a “ no t p ers ua si ve ” an d c on cl ud edth at Ja m es ha d n otm ethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f with re ga rdto saf ety -v al ve rel ie f. The 8di st ric t co urt n ot edJames’s cal cu la te d a ns wers an d d em ean ordu rin g h is tes ti m on y

an d the po ss ib le m ot iv at io ns James ha d fo r no t b ei ng forth co m in g abo utth e m ai n bu y er fo r th e m ari

juan a. The d is tri ctco urt p oi nt edou t tha t the re was “ a lo t o f ci rcu m st an ci al ev id en ce” s up po rti ng a fi nd in g t ha t J am es ha d n otgi ve n c om pl et e in fo rm at io n a s t o wh om

th ey were s el li ng th ei r m ari

juan a. The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d tha t J am es di d n otqu al ify for s afety -v al ve rel ie f an d s en te nc edJames to
co nc urren t 6 0- m on thsen te nc es . Jam es fil edth is ap pe al
. II . DISCUSSI ON A. Mot io n to Decl ar e § 84 1( b)(1 )(B) (v ii ) Unco ns tit uti on al On ap pe al , Jam es , li ke hi s co -d efen da ntBro wn, ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n d en y in g the m ot io n t o d ecl are § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (v ii ) un co ns ti tu ti on al
. 2 Sp eci fic al ly, Ja m es co nt en ds hi s equa l p ro te ct io n ri gh ts were v io late d b ecau se th e go ve rn m en t i s n otpro se cu ti ng “ si m il arl y si tu at edde fen da nt s” inothe r st at es for th e sa m e co nduc t (p os se ss in g 1 00 m ari juan a p lant s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e) tha t subjec te d B ro wn t o § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) ’s fiv e-year m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e. 3

We reviewde novo the c onstitut ionality of a statute. United States v. Phaknikone, 605 2 F.3d 1099, 1107 ( 11th Cir.), cer t. denied, 131 S. Ct. 643 (2010). On appe al, J ames doe s not argue that § 841(b) (1)( B) (vii)’s sente ncingscheme imposing 3 a five -year

mandatory

minimumsentenc e whe n the § 841(a ) off ense involves 100 or

more marijuana plants: (1) on its fac e violates the Equa l Protection Clause; (2) violates the D ue Process Clause; or ( 3) violates the Te nth Amendment. 9As i n B ro wn’s ap pe al , we fin d n o m eri t t o J am es ’s “ as ap pl ie d” equa l

pr ot ect io n c la im . Any

all eg edsel ect iv e p ro se cu ti on un de r § 8 41 (a), the
subs tant iv e o ffen se , is no t a b as is foratt ack in g o n e qu al pro te ct io n g ro un ds th e im po si ti on of the fiv e-year m an da to ry m in im um in§ 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (v ii ), th e p en al ty pr ov is io n. Pu t an ot he r way , Jam es is no t “ si m il arl y si tu at ed ” to pe op le who ha ve ne ve r be enpro se cu te d fo r vi ol at in g § 84 1( a). At a m in im um , Jam es ne ed edto co m pa re h im se lf t o o th er d efen da nt s co nv ic te d u nd er § 84 1( a) fo r po ss es si ng at le as t 1 00 m ari

juan a p lant s b utwho were n otsubjec te d t o § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (v ii ). Ja m es wou ldbe ha rdpre ss edto fin d asu ffi ci en t co m pa rat orforsu chan equa l p ro te ct io n c la im . Once ade fen da ntpl ead s g ui lty to po ss es si ng m or e th an 10 0 m ari juan a p lant s, ab se nta subs tant ia l as si st an ce m ot io n o r sa fety -v al ve rel ie f, th e d is tri ctco urt d oe s n otha ve th e au th or ity , m uc h l es s the di sc ret io n, t o s en te nc e be lo w th e fi ve -y ear s ta tu to ry m an da to ry

m in im um . See Un it edSta te s v . Cas ta in gSo sa , 53 0 F .3d13 58 , 13 61 -6 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . For thi s re as on , Jam es ’s arg um en t th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e “ de ferr ed ” to Flo rid a’s le ss sev ere m ari juan a se nt en ci ng laws lac ks m eri t. Des pi te James’s cla im s t o t he co nt rary, the g rav am enof h is equa l p ro te ct io n arg um en t i s n otsel ect iv e se nt en ci ng , bu t s el ect iv e p ro se cu ti on . As th e d is tri ct co urt co rrec tl y

co nc lu de d, J am es waiv edth is arg um en t wh enhe pl edgu il ty. See 10Uni te d S tate s v . Sm ith, 5 32 F.3d11 25 , 11 27 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata

de fen da ntge ne ral ly w ai ve s al l n on -juri sd ic ti on al ch al le ng es to th e co nv ic ti on by
en te rin g agu il ty ple a). B. Sa fety -Va lv e Rel ie f

“ Safe ty-val ve rel ie f al lo ws fo r se nt en ci ng witho utreg ardto an y st atut ory m in im um , with re sp ectto cert ai n o ffen se s, wh ensp eci fic requi rem en ts are m et .” Uni te d S tate s v . Mil ki nt as , 47 0 F .3d13 39 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); s ee al so 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f); U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2. The de fen da ntm us t p ro ve eli gi bi li ty for
sa fety -v al ve rel ie f by a pre po nd eran ce o f th e ev id en ce. See Mi lk in ta s, 4 70 F.3dat 13 45 ; Un it edSta te s v . Poyato , 45 4 F .3d12 95 , 12 97 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Of th e fi ve saf

ety -v al ve cri te ria , th e o nl y on e atis su e o n app eal requi res th e de fen da nt“ no t l at er tha n the ti m e o f th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng ” to pro vi de tru th fu l
an d c om pl et e in fo rm at io n “ co nc ern in g the off en se or o ffen se s tha t wer e p artof t he
sa m e co ur se of c on du ctor o f a co m m on sch em e o r pl an , bu t the factth atth e de fen da ntha s n o re le va ntor u se fu l o th er i nf orm at io n t o p ro vi de or t ha t the Gov ern m en t i s al ready

aware o f th e in fo rm at io n s ha ll no t p recl ud e a d et erm in at io n by the co urt tha t the de fen da ntha s co m pl ie d wi th th is requi rem en t.” U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2(a )(5 ). The d efen da ntm us t co m e fo rwardan d t ru th fu ll y supp ly all in fo rm at io n h e h as rel at in g t o h is off en se , andth e g ov ern m en t i s n otrequi redto 11so li ci t i nf

orm at io n fr om

th e d efen da nt . Mil ki nt as , 47 0 F .3dat 1 34 5- 46 . A dru g de fen da nt ’s ob li ga ti on to pro vi de ful l d is cl os ur e in cl ud es any “ in fo rm at io n rel at in g t o the in vo lv em en t o f othe rs an d t o t he ch ai n o f th e n arco ti cs di st rib ut io n.” Uni te d S tate s v . Cru z, 10 6 F .3d15 53 , 15 57 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). 4 W e fi ndno cle ar erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s s afet y -v al ve rul in g. J am es te st ifi edth athe ha d p ro vi de d c om pl et e an d t ruth fu l i nf

orm at io n wh enhe sai d Hur it os bo ug htth e m ajor ity of t he m ari

juan a an d tha t t o h is kn owl ed ge Carl o Co lu cci was n ota bu y er. Age ntLut z, on th e o th er h an d, t es ti fie d t ha t o th ers in vo lv edinth e m ari

juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n c on tra di ct edJames in in te rv ie ws. Sp eci fic al ly, Age ntLut z’s in ve st ig at io n re ve al ed , in te r al ia , th at : (1 ) Pl aci ot is an d Hur it os ov erh eardJames an d B ro wn d is cu ss in g am ai n b uyer an d b ot h u nd ers to od th e m ai n b uyer to be Co lu cci ; (2 ) ba se d o n t he am ou ntof m ari juan a Ja m es ’s gro w ho us es pro du ced , Huri to s, wh o h adhi s o wn g ro w ho us es an d o nl y pu rch as edfro m Ja m es an d B ro wn wh enhe ne ed edad di ti on al m ari juan a, was no t l ik el y

to be th e

“ m ai n b uyer”; (3) James an d B ro wn co ll ect edpa y ch eck s fr om Co lu cci ’s ni gh tc lub; (4) Pla ci ot is an d Hu rit os be li ev edJames di d n otactua ll y workat “When re viewinga district cour t’s safe ty -valve decision, we revie w for c lear err or a 4 district court’s fa ctual dete rminations . . . [ and] de novo the cour t’s leg al interpre tation of the statutes and sente ncingguidelines.” United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (quotation mar

ks omitt ed). “ The que stion of whether the information [that the defe ndant] supplied to the g overnme nt . . . was truthful and c omplete . . . is a fa ctual findingfor the district court.” United States v. Br ownlee, 204 F .3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2000). 12Co lu cci ’s ni gh tc lub; an d (5 ) th ree o f Ja m es ’s gro w ho us es were re nt edfro m

Co lu cci . The d is tri ctco urt was en ti tl edto cred itAgen t Lu tz ov er J am es , and Age ntLut z’s te st im on y

su gg es te d t ha t J am es was wi th ho ld in g t he id en ti ty of hi s m ai n m ari juan a b uyer du rin g h is de br ie fin gs . See Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 39 8 F.3 d 1 29 1, 1 29 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwhen th e se nt en ci ng co urt res ol ve s co nf

li ct in g t es ti m on y

be twee n t wo wi tn es se s, “ th e res ol ut io n wi ll alm os t ne ve r be cle ar erro r”). 5 Ja m es arg ue s tha t wh ena de fen da nttes ti fie s tha t h e p ro vi de d fu ll an d
co m pl et e in fo rm at io n, the go ve rn m en t i s re qu ire d t o p res en t co m pe te ntev id en ce to reb uthi s t es ti m on y . This arg um en t i gn or es th e fac t tha t the di st ric t co urt h eard Ja m es ’s tes ti m on y

an d d is cred it editan d tha t the go ve rn m en t p ro du cedAgen t Lut z’s te st im on y

as t o h is in ve st ig at io n, wh ic h i nd ic at edth atJames kn ew of , bu t wou ldno t re ve al , a m ai n m ari juan a b uyer, who was m os t l ik el y Co lu cci . Und er
To the extent J ames a

rgues that the district cour t improperly

cre dited Ag ent Lutz’s 5 testimony based on his status as a

law enf orce ment office r, we disagree . See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (notingthat the district court may not rely on a “c redit law e nforc ement in ca se of c onflict” rule in making c redibility deter minations). The district court commente d extensively on why it did not believe J ames’s te stimony
. We also rejec t J ames’s c laim that the district court impermissibly defe rre d to the g overnme nt’s assessment of the truthfulness and c ompleteness of James’s information. See United States v. Espinosa, 172 F.3d 795, 796- 97 (11th Cir. 1999) (e x plaining that the district court may not defe r to the g overnme nt in determiningwhether the def endant pr ovided truthful and complete information). The district court stated e x plicitly that it was not relying on the g overnme nt’s assessment, hea rd testimony

from both Ag ent Lutz and J ames a nd eng ag ed in a leng thy discussion reg arding

why it found J ames ha d not provided complete information.

13th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t J am es was wi th ho ld in g

in fo rm at io n re la ti ng to hi s o ffen se was n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. AFFIRMED.

14