FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 05/24/99 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

PUBLISH 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

-------------------------------------------

No. 97-5155

--------------------------------------------

D. C. Docket No. 97-25-CR-JAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GIOVANI YATE,

Defendant-Appellant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

(May 24, 1999)

Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON*, Senior Circuit Judge.

________________

* Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by

designation.
 1

We do not decide whether a defendant who has satisfied the requirement of section 5C1.2(5)

is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility: That issue is not before us. 

 2

Section 5C1.2(5) requires the defendant to “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[.]” In contrast, for an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction, “a defendant is not required to volunteer, or affirmatively admit,

relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction . . . . A defendant may remain silent in

2

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Giovani Yate appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to

import cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963.

This case presents the issue of whether a sentencing court’s finding that a

defendant has truthfully admitted the conduct comprising the offense of conviction

for purposes of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1,

is incompatible with a finding that the defendant has failed to satisfy the

requirement of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5) that the defendant truthfully disclose to the

government all information and evidence that he has about the offense and all

relevant conduct. 

A sentencing court’s conclusion that a defendant accepted responsibility

under section 3E1.1 does not preclude a finding that the defendant has failed to

meet the affirmative-disclosure requirement of section 5C1.2(5):1

 briefly stated,

section 5C1.2(5) is a “tell-all” provision, demanding a different kind of disclosure

than section 3E1.1 demands.2

 See United States v. Sabir, 117 F.3d 750, 752 (3d
respect to relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction without affecting his ability to

obtain [the reduction,]” as long as the defendant does not falsely deny relevant conduct. 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)). 

 3

Yate’s other arguments -- about the factual sufficiency of his disclosure, a mitigating-role

reduction, and a downward departure -- lack merit and do not warrant discussion.

3

Cir. 1997) (“[T]he acceptance of responsibility provisions in the guidelines plainly

do not subsume all of a defendant’s responsibilities under the safety valve

provisions.”); United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144, 149 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he

admission of responsibility necessary to obtain a reduction under § 3E1.1(a) is not

necessarily sufficient to satisfy [§ 5C1.2(5)].”); United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119,

124 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he fact that the defendant qualified for a two-level

acceptance of responsibility reduction under § 3E1.1(a) does not establish

eligibility for a safety valve reduction under § 5C1.2.”). We therefore AFFIRM

Yate’s sentence.3

AFFIRMED.