* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 15 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.MAURILIO CONTRERASMURATALLA,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-2087 (D. Ct. No. CR-98-775-SC) (D. N. Mex.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, HOLLOWAY, andBRORBY , Circuit Judges.
Defendant Maurilio Contreras-Muratalla appeals fromthe district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and affirm. I. Defendant entered a United States Border Patrol che ckpoint near Las- 2 -

Cruces, New Mexico early on the morning of June 14, 1998. A Border Patrol agent observed that defendant appeared nervous whil e answering routine citizenship questions. The agent asked defendant w ho owned the vehicle he was driving. After a pause, defendant identified his c ousin as the owner. Because of defendant’s demeanor during questioning, the agent referred him to secondary inspection. There defendant conse nted to a search of the vehicle. The search yielded 142.02 net kilograms ( 313 pounds) of marijuana valued at $250,000. Defendant was subsequently arr ested. After his arrest, defendant admitted to DEA agent J oe Willingham that he knew the car contained marijuana. He said that a m an named “Jose Cortez” had furnished both the car and the contraband, and thathe was to deliver the car to Los Angeles, California and receive $800 upon deliv ery. Defendant waived indictment and pled guilty to poss ession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and to aiding and abetting in violati on of 18 U.S.C. § 2. He met again with Willingham for a debriefing on January 1 3, 1999. In the debriefing, defendant repeated his previous confession and added several details. He said that the courier transact ion originated in a chance encounter with Cortez while defendant was in Juarez , Mexico to visit his hospitalized grandmother. Defendant said that Cort ez suggested a means by- 3 -

which defendant could earn money to pay for his grandmother’s expenses. Cortez then arranged for defendant to transport the mariju ana from El Paso, Texas to Los Angeles. Defendant stated that in addition to the $800 he was to receive upon delivery of the marijuana, he had been given $1000 in up-front expense money. Defendant also said that he was to deliver the car at 6:00 a.m. to a McDonald’s restaurant in Los Angeles, where two menin a brown pickup truck would utter a code name and retrieve the car. Defe ndant did not name the two men or provide any further information about Cortez ; he claimed that he had no means of contacting these people if they did not fi nd him. Willingham asked defendant to specify the precise address of the McD onald’s, and defendant was unable to do so. Given the distance between Las Cr uces, where the Border Patrol stopped defendant, and Los Angeles, Willingham advi sed defendant that he would not have been able to reach Los Angeles by 6:00 on the morning of June 14, 1998. Defendant replied that he had meant to say that he was to deliver the car at 6:00 a.m. on June 15, 1998. Willingham then noted that if that were true, defendant would have arrived in Los Angeles 12 hours early. Defendant responded that he was supposed to stay in a Los Angeles motel on June 14, and then deliver the marijuana at 6:00 a.m. on June 15. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court se ntenced defendant to the statutory minimum sixty months’ imprisonment and fo ur years’ supervised- 4 -

release. Defendant moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and the court denied the motion. II. We review the district court’s specific conclusion that a defendant is not eligible for relief under § 3553(f) for clear error . United States v. Roman-Zarate , 115 F.3d 778, 784 (10th Cir. 1997). Section 3553(f ) provides that a sentencing
court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines prom ulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission . . . without regard t o any statutory minimum sentence, if the Court finds at sentencing . . . that . . .

. . . . . . . not later than the time of the sentencing hea ring, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses th at were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other informati on to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shal l not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has c omplied with this requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). To qualify for a sentence reduction under this provision, a defendant must disclose “everything he knows about his own actions and those of his co-conspirators.” Roman-Zarate , 115 F.3d at 784 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Myers , 106 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that § 3553(f)(5) “is very broad , requiring disclosure of everything the defendant knows about his own action s and those who participated- 5 -

in the crime with him”). For this reason, § 3553(f )(5) has been termed the “tell all you can tell” requirement. United States v. Ac osta-Olivas , 71 F.3d 375, 378- 79 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and c itation omitted). The district court found that defendant had been le ss than complete and truthful in his interviews with the government. Sp ecifically, the court found that [Section 3553(f)] provides that the defendant must give a complete and truthful statement. . . . I find it very hard to be lieve that you have a chance encounter in a hospital . . . between two complete strangers, and out of that encounter a business transaction evolves . . . for the driving of a car . . . to an unidentified McDonald’s someplace in Los Angeles

. Also, the fact that he carried a very valuable carg o with him and had no way to contact the owner or the person who had e ntrusted the cargo to him, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. . . . [I]t casts doubt on believability. Sentencing Tr. at 43. The court concluded that def endant did not present sufficient evidence that he truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence he had concerning the offense. Nothing in the record suggests that the court clear ly erred in finding that defendant was not completely truthful. The decisio n not to grant a reduction in defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge