## 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 Judge s, and ALARCON*, Senior Circuit Judge.

________________ * Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior U.S. Ci rcuit 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 “t ruthfully provide[] to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part ofthe 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 whet her a sentencing court’s finding that a defendant has truthfully admitted the c onduct 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 th e defendant has failed to satisfy the requirement of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5) that th e defendant truthfully disclose to the government all information and evidence th at he has about the offense and all relevant conduct. A sentencing court’s conclusion th at a defendant accepted responsibility under section 3E1.1 does not preclude a fi nding 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 (3drespect to relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction without affecting his ability to obtain [the reduction,]” as long as the defenda nt 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 unde r § 3E1.1(a) does not establish eligibility for a safety valve reduction under § 5C1.2.”). We therefore AFFIRM Yate’s sentence. 3 

### AFFIRMED.