## F I LED Unite d St at e s C our t o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 29, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 3165 GR E GOR Y H. S T E P HE NS ON, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t,

__________________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee,
v. AL T ON S T ANL E Y, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 3172

AP P EA LS F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. No . 0 2

– CR- 4 0 1 2 2 - 0 1 - S AC) ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CR- 4 0 1 2 2 - 0 2 - S AC) M i chae l S. H ol l and of H ol l and and H ol l and, R us s el l , K ans as , forD efe ndant
- A ppel l ant St ephens on. M e lo d yE v a n s, A ss ista n t F e d e ra l P u b lic D e f e n d e r (D a v id J. P h ill ip s, F e d e ra l P u b lic D e f e n d e r, w ith h e r o n th e b ri e f ), T o p e k a , K a n s a s , f

o r D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t S ta n le y . J a m e s B r o w n , A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y ( E r i c F
. M e l g r e n , U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y, w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) , T opeka, K ans as , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee.2

B efor e M c CO NNELL , BA LD OCK , and T Y M K O V I C H , C i r cui tJ udges . BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udge.
A K ans as s t at e tr ooperuncover ed appr oxi m at el y s i xt y ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne hi dden i n a com p a r t me n tu n d e r n e a t h t h e b e d o f a t ru c k i n whi c h Def

e n d a n t s Gr e g o r ySt e p h e ns on and A l t on St anl eyw er e tr avel i ng. A gr and j ur yi ndi ct ed D efe ndant s on char ges of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) ; and
cons pi r acyt o pos s es s coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 846. A ft er t he di s t r i ct cour t deni ed thei rr es pect i ve mot i ons t o s uppr es s , D efe ndant s ent er ed condi t i onal pl eas of gui l t y . See Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 11( a) ( 2)
. D efe ndantSt anl eypl ed gui l t yt o bot h char ges
w h il e D ef

e n d a n t Step h en so n p led g u il tyto the p o sses sion ch arg e. T h e d istri ct co u rt
s ent ence d t hem t o 54 m onths and 151 mont hs i m pr i s onm entr es pect i vel y . D efe ndant s t hen f i l ed sepa rat e app eal s chal l eng i ng t he d enial of thei r m oti on s t o sup press . S t anleyal so
c h a llen g e s th e d istric t co u rt’s ca lcu latio n o f h is s e n ten c e . W e c o n so lid a ted th e tw o a p p e a ls for or al ar gum ent and now di s pos e of t hem j oi nt l y . See Fed. R
. A pp. P. 3( b) ( 2)
. W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , a n d a f f i r m. I. T he fol l ow i ng und ispu ted fact s ar e t aken f r om t he tr ans cr i ptof the s uppr es s i on hear i ng atw hi ch onl y t he arr es t i ng offi cer t es t i fi ed. O n t he morni ng of Sept ember 27, 2002, Ser geantK el l ySchnei derw as patr ol l i ng I nt er s t at e 70 i n R us s el l C ount y , K ans as , w hen heS ergeant Schn ei der exp l ai ned ho w t he “k i nk ” w as i nd i cat i ve o f a fals e 1 c o m p a rtm e n t: “[I] n o rdert o b uil d a co m part m ent i n the bed of the t ruck, t heyhav e t o rai se t he bed of

t he truck. So t heyr ai s ed i tup tw o ort hr ee i nches dependi ng on th e d e p th o f

th e c o m p a rtm e n t. In o rd e r to m a k e th a t lo o k rig h t o n a v e h icle t hey ’ l l r ai s e the bac k of the ca b up .
. . t o m ake i tl ook l i ke the l i nes m at ch u p o n th e p ick u p . W e ll at a d ista n c e y o u c a n tell th e re ’s a n o b v io u s k in k in [the] vehi cl e bec aus e the ca b comes fr om t he fr ont , comes up, and the bed comes up fr om t he otherw ayt o l evel [. ] ”

3 o b serv ed a F o rd F -25 0 p icku p tru ck tr av eli n g ea stbo u n d
. A cc o rdin g to Se rge an t Sc h n eide r, t he truck ca ughthi s at t ent i on beca us e he s aw a “maj or ki nk i n t he vehi cl e. ” T he “ki nk” l ed Ser geantSchnei dert o bel i eve the veh icl e m ighthave a fal s e compar t m ent . Ser geant 1 Schnei derpul l ed up al ongs i de t o geta cl os erl ook. H e obs er ved a num ber of di s cr epanc i es t hathei ght ened hi s s us pi ci on. Ser geantSchnei dert es t i fi ed the bed of t he truck w as nott he
s ame s hade of

w hi t e as t he ca b. T hi s i ndi cat ed one of t he tw o had bee n r epai nt ed. F u rth erm o re, th e b ed w as n o t al ign ed w ith th e c a b , an alt era ti o n that in the o ff icer’s
ex p erien ce ind icated the e x ist en ce o f a h idd en co m p artm en t. A n d the rear fen d er w ell s w ere p a in ted b lac k , w h ich w a s o d d b e c a u se a b se n t an u n d e rc o a tin g , the f e n d e r w e lls a re typ ica lly pai nt ed the s ame col oras t he vehi cl e. Ser geantSchnei deral s o t es t i fi ed h e o bs er ved t oo
m uch met al i ns i de the fe nder w el l , w hi ch i ndi cat ed al t er ed pl ace m ent of t he bed. B as ed on hi s obs er vat i ons , Ser geantSchnei derdeci ded t o s t op t he truck and i nves t i gat e. W h e n S e rg e a n t S c h n e id e r a p p ro a c h e d th e c a b o f th e tr u c k , h e n o tice d a f re sh w e ld betw een the bed and t he cab of the t ruck. T his i ncreased his suspi ci on of a f al se4

co m p artm en t bec au se, ac co rdin g to S erg ea n t Sc h n eide r, “the re sho u ldn ’t b e a w eld in there atal l
. ” Ser geantSchnei derexpl ai ned the w el d coul d nothave be en made unl es s t he bed of t he truck had be en r emoved. Ser geantSchnei dert es t i fi ed thatatt hatpoi nthe knew , bas ed
on his exp eri ence w i t h “ o t her com part m ents l i ke thi s, ” that the truck had a fal se compar t m ent . Ser geantSchnei dert ol d t he dri ver St anl ey and hi s pas s engerSt ephens on t hat he bel i e v e d t h e b e d o f t h e t ru c k h a d a f

a l s e c o mpa r t me n t . Se r g e a n tSc h n e i d e ro r d er ed D efe ndant s t o s t and i n fr ont of t he t ruck. Ser geantSchnei dert hen w al ked t o t he r earof t he t ruck, dr opped the t ai l gat e, and per for m ed w hat he cal l s a “tw o- fi ngert es t ” t o det er m i ne the depth of the truck’ s bed. H e pl ace d one fi nger on t op of t he t ruck’ s bed and one fi ngerfr om his otherhan d u nd erneat h the t ruck’s bed t o d et erm i ne the w i dth bet w een th e tw o fingers. S ergeant Schn ei der t est i fi ed to t he pres ence of a t hree i nch space bet w een the t w o fingers. T hi s w as s i gni fi cant l yl ar gert han the s pace r equi r ed by t he s heet of m et al on t he truck’ s bed
as or i gi nal l ym anufa ctur ed. Ser geant Schnei der expl ai ned t hat “ther e shoul d be one she et of m et al i n t he bed of

t hatt ruck and .
. . y our fi nger [s ] s houl d .
. . t ouch .
. . . W hen y ou t ake one fi ngeron t op and one on the bot tom the r e’ s an ac tual t hr ee- i nch voi d i n t her e w hi ch i ndi cat ed t o m e thatt he compar t m entw as t her e. ” B as ed on hi s bel i ef t hatt he truck cont ai ned a fal se com part m ent and h i s experi ence th atm ostfal se com part m ents con t ai n n arcot i cs, Ser geantSchnei derpl ace d D efe ndant s underarr es t . Se rge an t S chnei derr etr i eved a drug cani ne fr om t he patr ol carand depl oy ed hi m aro u n d the t ruck. T he ca ni ne al er t ed. D i s coveryof th e coca i ne s oon fol l ow ed. B as ed on fa ctual fi ndi ngs cons i s t entw i t h t he forego i ng , t he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed the D efen dan t s’ m oti on s t o sup press .5 II. D e f e n d a n ts ra ise n u m e ro u s c h a llen g e s to th e d istric t co u rt o rd e rs d e n y in g th e ir
r es pect i ve m ot i ons t o s uppr es s . W hen r evi ew i ng s uch or der s , w e cons i dert he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s . W e vi ew the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor able to the G overnm entand
acc eptt he court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs unl es s cl ear l yerr oneo u s. See U ni t ed St at es v. R os bor ough, 366 F. 3d 1145, 1148 ( 10t h C i r . 2004)
. T he w i t nes s es ’ s cr edi bi l i t yand the
w ei ghtt o be gi ven evi dence , t ogetherw i t h al l i nfer en ces and conc l us i ons dr aw n fr om t he
e v id e n c e , are m a tters w ith in th e p ro v in c e o f th e d istric t ju d g e . Id . T h e u lti m a te det er m i nat i on of re as onabl enes s undert he Four t h A m endment , how ever , i s a ques t i on of l aw
r evi ew abl e de novo. I d. A. D efendantSt ephens on fi r s tar gues t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n fi ndi ng Ser geant S ch n eide r ha d rea so n ab le su sp ici o n to i n it iat e a traf fic st o p . H e c o n tend s an o ff icer’s m ere ob ser vati on of m od i fi cat i on s t o a v ehicl e i s, i n the absence o f other su sp ici ou s fact ors, i ns uffi ci entt o cre ate a re as onabl e s us pi ci on of cr i m i nal act i vi t yand thus j us t i fyt he s t op. T ra f f ic s to p s a re se izu re s w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t an a lo g o u s to inv esti g ati v e de tention s. S ee U n it ed S tat es v. B rad fo rd, 4 2 3 F
. 3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 6 (1 0 th C ir
. 20 05 )
. The pr i nc i pl e s go ve r ni ng i nv e s t i ga t i ve de t e nt i on s ou t l i ne d i n T e r r y v. O hi o, 39 2 U. S. 1 ( 1986) , govern t he l aw ful nes s of t r aff i c s t ops . See U ni t ed St at es v. H ol t , 264 F. 3d 1215, 1228 ( 10t h C i r . 2001)
. U nder T err y , an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on i s pr operw hen the det ai ni ng6

offi cerhas a r eas onabl e sus pi ci on t hat cr i m i nal act i vi t y m ay be afoot
. See U ni t ed St at es v. A r vi zu, 534 U
. S. 266, 273 ( 2002)
. W e eva l uat e the off i cer ’ s conduct“i n l i ghtof comm on
s ens e and or di naryhum an expe r i ence , ” def err i ng t o “the abi l i t y of a tr ai ned l aw enfor cement offi cert o di s t i ngui s h betw een i nnocent and sus pi ci ous act i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M cR ae, 81 F
. 3 d 1 5 2 8 , 1 5 3 4 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). C ont r aryt o St ephens on’ s ar gum ent , w e have pre vi ous l yhel d an off i cer ’ s obs er vat i on of s t ructur al m odi fi cat i ons t o a vehi cl e ca n al one gi ve ri s e t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, and thus ju stif y a sto p , w h e n th e m o d if ica tio n s ar e su c h th a t a w e ll-train e d o f f ice r m a y re a so n a b ly bel i eve a cr i m e i s bei ng comm i t t ed. See U ni t ed St at es v. O r r egon- Fer nandez , 78 F. 3d 1497, 1 5 0 4 -05 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ); see also U n it ed S tat es v. T o ro-P elae z, 10 7 F
. 3 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 5 (10 th C ir
. 1997)
. I n t he cont extof vehi cl e modi fi cat i ons , w e expl ai ned: “The t r ooper m us tgo bey ond t he i nar t i cul abl e hunch that al l cus t om i zed vehi cl es cont ai n hi dden compar t m ent s and poi nt t o s peci fi c fa ct or s w hi ch j us t i fyt he obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e conc l us i on t hatpar t i cul ar al t er at i ons i ndi cat e a hi dden com par t m entw hi ch maycont ai n contr aband. ” O r r egonFer nandez , 78 F. 3d at1505. A ppl y i ng t hi s s t andar d t o t he fact s befor e us , w e have no t r oubl e conc l udi ng Ser geant S chn ei der’ s observat i on s gave ri se t o a reasonab l e suspi ci on t hat th e tru c k had a fal se compar t m entcont ai ni ng contr aband. Pr i ort o s t oppi ng t he tru ck, Ser geantSchnei der obs er ved s ever al m odi fica ti o n s to the truck w hi ch s uppor t ed hi s s us pi ci on. A m ong t hem
w er e an obvi ous hei ghtdi ffe r ence betw een the bed of t he t ruck and t he cab of t he truck; t he di ffe r ence i n t he s hade of col orbetw een the ca b and the bed of t he t ruck; t he fact t he fe nder7

w el l w as pai nt ed bl ack i ns t ead of w hi t e; and the pr es ence of t oo m uch met al i ns i de the fe nder
w el l
. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatt he s um of thes e modi fi cat i ons s uppor t s a fi ndi ng of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o j us t i fyt he s t op. B. D efe ndant s St anl eyand St ephens on nextar gue the di s t r i ct co u r terr ed i n fi ndi ng S e rg e a n t S c h n e id e r h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to se a rc h th e tru c k a t th e tim e h e lo w e re d th e tailg a te t o perfo rm t he “tw o- fi nger ” t es t . Pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch a ve hi cl e exi s t s i f, undert he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , a fa i rpr obabi l i t yexi s t s t hat “the vehi cl e cont ai ns contr aband
orot herevi dence w hi ch i s s ubj ectt o s ei zur e under t he l aw . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M er cado, 307 F
. 3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 0 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ); U n it ed S tat es v. N iel sen , 9 F
. 3 d 1 4 8 7 , 1 4 8 9 -90 (10 th C ir
. 1993)
. A n obj ect i ve st andar d m eas ur es pr obabl e caus e–w hethert he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s
w i t hi n t he off

i cer ’ s know l edge s uffi ci ent l yw arr anta n o f f i c e ro f r e a s o n a b l e caut i on t o bel i eve contr aband orevi dence of a c r i m e w i l l be found. See O r nel as v. U ni t ed St at es , 517 U
. S. 690, 6 9 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; a c c o r d Un i t e d S t a t e s v . E d wa r d s , 2 4 2 F
. 3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 4 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )
. T h u s , we
e v a lu a te p ro b a b le c a u se in re latio n to th e c irc u m sta n c e s a s th e y w o u ld a p p e a r to a p ru d e n t, caut i ous and tr ai ned pol i ce offi cer . See U ni t ed St at es v. T r et o- H ar o, 287 F. 3d 1000, 1006 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). W e have pr evi ous l y hel d evi dence of a hi dden compar t m ent w hen coupl ed w i t h ot her
s u s p ic io u s circu m stan ce s ca n co n tr ibu te t o p rob ab le ca u se to sea rch a v eh icl e. S ee e.g., U ni t ed St at es v. V as quez- C as t i l l o, 258 F. 3d 1207, 1213 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2001) ( concl udi ng evi dence of a hi dden compar t m entcoupl ed w i t h offi cer ’ s s m el l of r aw m ar i j uana pr ovi ded8

pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A nder s on, 114 F. 3d 1059, 1066 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( concl udi ng pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch bas ed on evi dence of a hi dden compar t m entcoupl ed
w ith slig h tlyc o n f

lictin g v e rsio n s o f tra v e l p lan s a n d sm e ll o f a ir f re sh e n e r). M o re re c e n tly and more i m por t ant l y , w e hel d t hati n cert ai n i ns t ance s evi dence of a hi dden compar t m ent
can al one gi ve r i s e t o pr obabl e caus e t o s ear ch a vehi cl e forcontr aband. See U ni t ed St at es
v. J ur ado- V al l ej o, 380 F. 3d 1235, 1238 ( 10t h C i r . 200 4 ). W h ethe revi dence of a hi dden compar t m ent can al one cr eat e pr obabl e ca us e, w e expl ai ned, depends on t w o fac t or s : ( 1) “the lik e lih o o d th a t th e re re a lly is a h id d e n c o m p a rtm e n t” a n d (2 ) “ th e lik e lih o o d th a t a v e h icle
w i t h a hi dden compar t m entw oul d, i n t he ci r cumst ance s , be s ecr et i ng contr aband. ” I d. T ur ni ng t o t he fi r s tfac t or , Ser geantSchnei der ’ s s us pi ci on of a hi dden compar t m ent
w as hei ght ened onc e he a ppr oache d t he truck on foot and observed a fr es h w el d betw een the b e d a n d t h e c a b o f

t h e t ru c k
. As h e e x p l a i n e d , t h e wel d “ j u s ti n c r e a s e d mys u s p i ci on of a f a lse c o m p a rtm e n t . . . [b ]e c a u se th e re sh o u ld n ’t b e a w e ld th e r e a t a ll. ” A c c o rd in g to h is t es t i m ony , he w as s ur e the vehi cl e cont ai ned a f al se com par t m entbas ed on hi s exper i ence fr om s ear chi ng ot her vehi cl es w i t h s i m i l arm odi fi cat i ons . Ser geantSchnei der ’ s t r ai ni ng and exper i ence i n drug i nt er di ct i on on t he dayi n questi o n w as ext ens i ve. H e had r ece i ved t r ai ni ng on i dent i fy i ng and l ocat i ng hi dden compar t m ent s thr ough t he K ans as H i ghw ay Pat r ol , and had been i nvol ved i n appr oxi m at el y fi fty cas es w her e hi dden compar t m ent s had been l ocat ed. I n approx im ately te n of thos e ca s es , t he compar t m entw as s i m i l art o t he compar t m ent i n t hi s cas e, and i n one cas e i t w as i dent i cal
. H e fur t her t es t i fi ed thati n over ni netyper centof the hi dden compar t m ent s he i nves t i gat ed, he found c ont r aband. T he di s t r i ct9

cour tcr edi t ed Ser geantSchnei der ’ s t es t i m ony , and D efe ndant s do notchal l enge thi s fi ndi ng on appea l
. C ons i der i ng t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance s , w e concl ude S er geantSchnei der had adequa t e r eas on t o bel i eve a s t r ong l i kel i hood exi s t ed t hat t he t ruck had a hidden
c o m p a rt m e n t u n d e rn e a th its b e d
. A s fort he s econd f act or–the l i kel i hood t he s ecr etcompar t m entcont ai ns contr aband–w e obs er ved i n J ur ado- V al l ej o t hati tw as “n o ta conc ern” bec aus e “[ i ] f t he vehi cl e had a hi dden compar t m ent , i tw as hi ghl yl i kel yt o cont ai n contr aband. ” W e found “har d t o con ce ive o f a l egi t i m at e us e of a l ar ge hi dden s t or age c om par t m enti n any vehi cl e[. ] ” I d. at1238- 39. Fur t her m or e, Ser geant Schnei der t es t i fi ed t hati n hi s exper i ence
over ni nety per cent of hi dden compar t m ent s conce al ed contr aband. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee
w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tSer geantSchnei derhad pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch the truck w hen he lo w e re d th e tailg a te to p e rf o rm th e tw o -f

in g e r te st. C. L ast , D ef

en d ant s St anl eyand St ephens on ar gue the di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n fi ndi ng pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tt hem pri ort o t he di s covery of t he drugs beca us e S er geantSchnei der di d notknow w hat , i f anyt hi ng i l l egal , w as i n t he compar t m ent . T hi s ar gum entm i s s es t he po i nt ent i rel y . P robable cause i s a m at t er of probab i l i t y , no tce rta in t y . P robable cause
r equi r es “onl y a proba bi l i t y or s ubs t ant i al chanc e of cr i m i nal act i vi t y , notan ac tual s how i ng
o f su c h a c tiv ity .” Illin o is v . G a tes , 4 6 2 U .S
. 2 1 3 , 2 4 3 n . 1 3 (1 9 8 3 ). B e c a u se a “ f a ir pr obabi l i t y ” i s al l t he l aw demands, w e do notr equi r e “gr eat erpr oof- cert ai nl ynotconcl us i ve pr oof- of anypar t i cul arfac t ores t abl i s hi ng pr obabl e ca u se.” Jur ado- V al l ej o, 380 F. 3d atW hi l e ourcas e l aw i s undoubt edl ycl earon t hi s poi ntof l aw , even a s s um i ng 2 D efe ndant s ’ ar gum entt hatt hei rarr es tw as pr emat ur e has m er i t , Ser geantSchnei derhad p rob ab le ca u se to d etain D ef en d an ts fo r saf

etyp u rpo ses. In su ch a c ase , D ef en d an t’ s (c o n tin u e d ...) 10 1239. Pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es t exi s t s i f, undert he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , t he fa ct s and
c irc u m sta n c e s w ith in th e o f f ice r’s k n o w led g e a re su f f icie n t to ju stif

ya p ru d e n t o f

f ice r in bel i evi ng t he def

endanti s engage d i n an i l l egal act ivit y . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pat t en, 183 F
. 3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 5 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). A s w e poi nt ed out , a l ar ge hi dden s t or age c om par t m enti n anyal t er ed vehi cl e has no l egi t i m at e us e. See Jur ado- V al l ej o, 380 F. 3d at 1238- 39. B as ed on hi s obs er vat i ons of t he phy s i cal m odi fi cat i ons t o t he truck and hi s p ri o r exper i ence i nves t i gat i ng hi dden compar t m ent s , Ser geantSchnei derr eas onabl ybel ieve d D efe ndant s w er e tr ans por t i ng
nar cot i cs . T he fa ct s of t h is c ase ampl ys uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatSer geantSchnei derhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tD efe ndant s w hen he di d. For i ns t ance , i n U ni t ed St at es v. Sot o, 988 F. 2d 1548, 1558 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) , w e found pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tt he def endant“gi ven [ th e o f f ice r’s ] c o n c lu sio n th a t a s e c re t c o m p a rtm e n t w a s p re se n t, an d th e lik e lih o o d it
co n tai n ed co n tr ab an d
. ” S im il arly , in U n it ed S tat es v. A ran g o , 9 1 2 F
. 2 d 4 4 1 , 4 4 7 (10 th C ir
. 1990) , w e conc l uded an of fi cerhad p rob ab le c ause t o arr es tbas ed on hi s di s coveryof “evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatt he truck had a hi dden compar t m entrunni ng underneath t he bed”
a n d a n i n a d e q u a t e a m o u n to f l u g g a g e f o r a tw o - w e e k v a c a t i o n . T h i s c a s e i s n o d i f f e r e n t . We
a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t S e rg e a n t S c h n e id e r h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to
arr es tD efe ndant s pr i ort o s ubj ect i ng t he truck t o a ca ni ne s ni ff. 2(
. . . cont i nued) 2 arrest w as h arm less. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . G am a-B asti d as, 14 2 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ P o lice o f

f ice rs a re a u th o riz e d to tak e re a so n a b le s tep s n e c e ss a ryto se c u re th e ir s afe t yand mai nt ai n t he s t atus quo dur i ng t he s t op” i ncl udi ng t he us e of ha ndcuff s w hen “pr obabl e ca us e orw hen the ci r cumst ance s r eas onabl yw arr ants uch meas ur es . ”) (q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d St anl eypur s uantt o t he 2003 edi t i on of the U ni t ed 3 St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual
. A l l ci t at i ons t o t he gui del i nes r efe rt o t he 2003 edi t i on, unl es s s peci fi ed otherw i s e. I n t he 2004 and 2005 ve r s i ons of the s ent enci ng g u idelines , the re leva n t pro v isi o n , § 2 D 1
. 1 (b)(6 ), ap p ea rs at § 2 D 1
. 1 (b)(7 ). 11 III
. Fi nal l y , w e addr es s D efe ndantSt anl ey ’ s chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence . Pr i o rt o s e n t enci ng St anl eys oughta tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj u stm en t to hi s bas e off ens e l evel pur s uantt o t he
s afe t y - val ve adj us t m entof U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 6)
. T he 2003 ver s i on of § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 6) r ead: “I f the def

endantm eet s the crit eri a s etfor t h i n s ubdi vi s i ons ( 1)
- ( 5) of s ubs ect i on ( a) of § 5C 1. 2
. . . decr eas e by 2 l evel s . ” See al s o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( f)
. T he G overnm entagr eed 3 St anl eym ett he cr i t er i a of s ubs ect i ons ( 1) t hr ough ( 4) , but not ( 5)
. Subse ct i on ( a) ( 5) r equi r es t hat“notl at ert han the t i m e of the s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he def endanthas t rut hful l ypr ovi ded t o t he G overnm ent al l i nfor m at i on and evi dence t he def endanthas conce r ni ng t he off ens e or
o f f e n s e s th a t w e re p a rt o f

th e s a m e c o u rs e o f

c o n d u c t o r o f

a c o m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n . . . .” I n an att empt t o s at i s fyt he r equi r ement s of s ubs ect i on ( 5) , St anl ey p rov ide d t he G o v e rn m e n t w ith a “ p ro f f e r l e tter” d e sc rib in g th e e v e n ts su rro u n d in g D e f e n d a n ts’ t r ip to A riz o n a . T h e lette r a lso sta ted th a t S tan ley w a s w ill in g to p ro v id e a d d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n if the G o v ern m en t d e e m e d the p rof fe r i n su ff

ici en t t o sati sfythe s af ety -va lve’s d iscl o su re req u ir em en t. A t sen tenc ing , th e G o v ern m en t op p o sed the a d justm en t, arg u ing S tanley ’s12

p rof fe r l ett er d id n o t sati sfy U
. S
. S
. G
. § 5 C 1
. 2 (a)(5). T h e G o v ern m en t con ce d ed S tanley ’s pr offe rl et t erdi d notcont ai n anyfal s e s t at ement s , butar gued the pr offe rdi d n o t m ee tt he di s cl os ur e r eq u i r e me n tb e c a us e “[ i ] tdoes n’ tm ent i on anyt hi ng es s ent i al l yr el at ed t o a br oader
cons pi r acyand the otheract s or t he ot her par t i ci pat i on t hatM r . St anl eym ayhave made or
m a yh a v e b e e n in v o lv e d in th is c o n s p ir a c y .” I n s uppor tof i t s pos i t i on, t he G overn m en t i nt r oduced a “R epor tof I nves t i gat i on”
co n sist ing o f a n interview b etw ee n a D E A A g en t and S tanley ’s fo rm er cell -m ate. T h e re p o rt det ai l s a conver s at i on St anl eyhad w i t h hi s cel l
- m at e dur i ng w hi ch St anl eyt ol d hi m , among
o th e r th in g s, th a t “S tep h e n so n ’s b ro th e r-in -la w . . . o w n e d a c o n s tr u c ti o n c o m p a n yin M a r yl a n d t h a t. . . r e c e i v [ e d ] t h e s h i p m e n t s o f c o c a i n e a n d m a r i

j u a n a ” a n d “ t h a th e [ S t a n l e y] had bee n i nvol ved i n t r ans por t i ng 60 t o 70 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and 5 0 0 p o u n ds of
m a r i j u a n a o n c e a m o n t h f

o ra p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e ye a r . ” T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d t h e s a f e t yv a lv e a d ju stm e n t f

in d in g S tan ley ha d n o t ca rrie d h is b u rd e n b e c a u se h e “ [ h a d ] n o t tru th f u lly di s cl os ed t o t he governm ental l he know s aboutt he off ens e of c onvi ct i on orr el evant
c o n d u c t.” T he def endant bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o t he s afe t y - val ve adj us t m ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pat r on- M ont ano, 223 F. 3d 1184, 1189 ( 10t h C i r . 2000)
. St anl eyar gues he s at i s fi ed the di s cl os ur e r equi r ement of
s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 5) i n t w o w ay s : Fi r s t , he cont ends hi s pr offe r l et t er cons t i tut ed a t rut hful and
com p l et e ac countof hi s offe ns e conduc tand r el evantconductas i tper t ai ns t o t he cha r ged offe ns e. Second, he cont ends he s at i s fi ed the di s cl o s ur e r equi r ement beca us e hi s pr offe r13

l et t eroffe r ed t o pr ovi de m or e i nfor m at i on upon t he G overnm ent ’ s r eques t . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on o f eli gi bi l i t yforr el i ef unde r§ 5C 1. 2( a) forcl earerr or . See U ni t ed St at es v. R om an- Z ar at e, 115 F. 3d 778, 784 ( 10t h C i r . 1997)
. O urr evi ew i s de novo t o t he ext entt he di s t r i ctcour ti nt erpr et ed the s cope a nd m eani ng of § 5C 1. 2( a)
. U ni t ed St at es
v . A co sta-O li v a, 7 1 F
. 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 7 7 n . 3 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). In c o n d u cti n g o u r rev iew , “[ w ]e a re cogni zantt hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the s afe t yval ve i s fac ts peci fi c and depende nton cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons t hatcannotbe r epl i cat ed w i t h t he same acc ur acyon ap p ea l. ” U n it ed S tat es v . V ir g en -C h av arin, 35 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 9 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). A. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d befor e us , w e ar e l eft w i t h t he fi r m i m pr es s i on St anl eyw as l es s t han fort hcomi ng i n hi s pr offe rl et t er . T he s cope of di s cl os ur e r equi r ed unders ubs ect i on (a) (5) i s verybroad. See A cost a-O l i va, 71 F
. 3d at37 8. S ub sect i on (a) (5) requi res a d e f e n d a n t to tru th f

u llyd isc lo se to th e G o v e rn m e n t “ al li nf or m at i on and evi dence ” the defe ndanthas aboutt he “of fens es t hatw er e partof the s ame cour s e o f co n d u ct orof a
co m m o n sch em e o r plan
. . . . ” (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e p h rase “o ff en se o r o ff

en ses that w ere partof the sam e cou rs e of con du ct or o f a com m on schem e or p l an” i s defi ned as “t he o ffen se of convi c t i o n a n d a l l r e l e v a n tc o n d u c t . ” § 5 C1. 2 , c o mme n t . ( n . 3 )
. Th e Gov er nm ent
conce des on appea l t he pr offe r l et t er cons t i tut es a ful l admi s s i on of hi s offe ns e conduc t , but
m ai nt ai ns t hat i t does not cons t i tut e a c om pl et e admi s s i on of St anl ey ’ s r el evantconduct
. T he g u id e lin e s d e f

in e re lev a n t c o n d u c t a s, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, “ a ll rea so n a b lyf o re se e a b le a c ts and omi s s i ons of other s i n fur t heran ce of the j oi nt l yunder t aken c r i m i nal act i vi t y ” that14

“ o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . . . . ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1
. 3 (a)(1)(B ). Wh e n t h e o f

f e n s e i n v o l v e s c o n s p i r a c yo ra j o i n t l yu n d e r t a k e n c r i mi n a l v e n tu r e , we
r eq u ir e the def

endantt o di s cl os e notonl yevery t hi ng he know s abouthi s ow n act i ons , but al so every t hing he k no w s abou this co-con spi rat ors. A cost a-O l i va, 71 F
. 3d at37 8; s ee al so U ni t ed St at es v. O ’ D el l , 247 F. 3d 655, 675 ( 6t h C i r . 2001) ( “A ppl i cat i on of the s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on notonl yr equi r es a def endant t o admi tt he conduc tchar ged, buti tal s o i m pos es an aff i r m at i ve obl i gat i on on t he def endantt o vol unt eerany i nfor m at i on as i de fr om t he conduc t compri s i ng t he el ement s of the offe ns e. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. S abir , 11 7 F
. 3d 75 0, 75 3 (3d C i r. 19 97 ) ( ho l ding subs e c tio n (a )(5 ) r equ i res a d e f e n d a n t to “ re v e a l a b ro a d e r sc o p e o f in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th e re lev a n t cr im in a l co n d u c t to t he author i t i es ”)
. T he di s cl os ur e m us t “not m er el y [be] t rut hful butal s o compl et e. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . S a la z a r- S a m a n ie g a , 3 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di ng t o t he i ndi ct m ent , St anl eypl ed gui l t y t o cons pi r i ng w i t h St ephens on, and

“ otherpers ons , t h e ident i t i es of w hi ch ar e unknow n t o t he gr and j ur y , ” t o pos s es s coca i ne
w i t h t he i nt ent to d ist r i but e. H i s pr offe rl et t er , how ever , fai l ed t o di s cl os e the r ol es and id e n tityo f

o th e r p a rticip a n ts. N o tab ly , S tan ley om itt e d in h is pr o f f e r le tter a n yre f

e re n c e to St ephens on’ s broth er- i n- l aw ’ s i nvol vement i n t he j oi ntcr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence i ndi cat es St ephens on ’ s b r o th e r - i n - l aw ow ns a cons t ruct i on company in M a ry lan d th a t se rv e d a s h e a d q u a rte rs f o r th e c rim in a l e n ter p rise
. A s S tan ley dis c lo se d to hi s cel l
- m at e, St ephens on’ s br ot her
- i n- l aw ’ s cons t ruct i on company“i s r ece i vi ng t he15

s hi pm ent s o f

c o c a i n e a n d ma r i

j u a n a . ” St a n l e ya n d St e p h e n s o n wer e mos tl i k e l yr e tu r ni ng to th is lo c a tio n w h e n th e yw e re d e ta in e d in K a n s a s . M or eover , i n hi s pr offe rl et ter S tanl eyat t empt ed t o m i ni m i ze hi s r ol e i n t he
cons pi r acy . H e w r ot e he “di dn’ tpar t i ci pat e i n t he l oadi ng orr ece i ve i ns t ruct i ons aboutt he t r i p, ot hert han fr om St ephens on. H e reli ed on St ephens on t o know t he i ns t ruct i ons and det ai l s o f

t h i s t r i p . St e p h e n s o n h a n d l e d t h e c o mmun i c a t i o n wi t h t h e p e o p l e i n M a r y l and, alt h o u g h M r. S tanleysaw them
. ” T o saythe lea st, w e a re v erysk ep ti ca l of S tanley ’s pr ofes s ed l ack of

know l edge r egar di ng t he cons pi r acy ’ s ot herpar t i ci pant s . T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence i ndi cat es t hi s lar gercr i m i nal ent erpr i s e had pr evi ous l yentrus t ed St anl ey w i t h t r ans por t i ng 60 t o 70 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and 500 pounds of m ar i j uana onc e a mont h forappr oxi m at el ya y ear . W e thi nk i thi gh ly unl i kel ySt anl eydi d notknow t he i dent i t i es of thos e i ndi vi dual s w ho w er e i nvol ved i n as s i s t i ng St anl eyand St ephens on. S tanley ’s ap p are n t om issi o n s an d inco m p let e statem en ts l ea d u s to c o n clud e the d istri ct co u rt di d notcomm i tcl earerr ori n deny i ng hi m t he s afe t y - val ve adj us t m ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. W r en , 6 6 F
. 3 d 1, 3 ( 1s tC i r . 1995) ( deny i ng s afe t y - val ve adj us t m entw her e the def endant “di d notpr ovi de t he gover nm ent w i t h al l of t he i nfor m at i on and evi dence he had c oncerni ng the v erycrim e to w h ich h e p lead ed g u il ty ”). B. A l t ernat i vel y , St anl eyar gues hi s offe rt o p r ovi de addi t i onal i nfor m at i on upon the G o v e rn m e n t’s r e q u e st s at i s fi ed t he di s cl os ur e r equi r ement even i f hi s pr offe rdi d not
. T he G o v e rn m e n t n e v e r so u g h t a d d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n f

ro m S tan ley. S tan ley co n ten d s h e sh o u ld16

notbe penal i zed for t he G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o cooper at e. I n A cos t a- O l i va, w e cons t rued t he l anguage of § 5C 1. 2( a) ( 5) t o “ requir e a d ef end an tt o d iscl ose ” a l l t h a th e k n o ws
conce r ni ng hi s i nvol vement i n t he cr i m e and the i nvol vement o f an yco- cons pi r at or s . 71 F. 3d at379 ( emphasi s added)
. B u t w e h av e n o tpr evi ous l ycons i der ed the ques t i on of
w hethert he G overnm ent , havi ng been gi ven not i ce of a def endant ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o pr ovi de
a d d iti o n a l in f

o rm a tio n , h a s a d u tyto so licit th a t in f o rm a tio n f

ro m th e d e f

e n d a n t. O t herci r cui t s t hathave c ons i der ed thi s i s s ue have hel d, forvary i ng r eas ons , t hatno
s uch duty exi s t s . I n O ’ D el l , 247 F. 3d at 675, t he def endantfi l ed a mot i on s eeki ng fr om t he G o v e rn m e n t a “ n o tice o f a n y f u rth e r i n f

o rm a tio n o r ev id e n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t . . . [ w o u ld
cons i der ] nece s s ary t o ful fi l l t he s afe t y val ve pr ovi s i on. ” The Si xt h C i r cui tdeci ded “[ t ] he governm enthas no obl i gat i on t o s ol i ci ti nfor m at i on t hatcoul d hel p t he def endantm eett he
re q u ire m e n t f

o r th e sa f e tyv a lv e .” Id . In U n ited S tate s v . Iv e ste r, 7 5 F .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 4 -8 5 (4 th C i r . 1 996) , t he Four th C i r cui tr ej ect ed the def endant ’ s s ugges t i on § 5C 1. 2( a) ( 5) “be
c o n s tru e d to p la c e o n th e G o v e rn m e n t th e o n u s o f s e e k in g o u t d e f

e n d a n ts f o r d e b ri e f

in g .” A c c o rd in g to th e c o u rt, su c h a c o n stru c tio n w o u ld “ o b v iate th e re q u ire m e n t th a t d e f e n d a n ts

‘ pr ovi de’ i nfor m at i on. ” I n U ni t ed St at es v. Fl anaga n, 80 F. 3d 143, 146 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) , t he Fi fth C i r cui ti nt erpr et ed the l anguage of the s afe t y - val ve di s cl os ur e pr ovi s i on as pl aci ng “the bur den .
. . on t he defenda nt t o pr ovi de t he G overnm ent w i t h al l t he i nfor m at i on and evi dence
r egar di ng t he offe ns e. ” T he cour tfound “no i ndi cat i on t hatt he G overnm entm us ts ol i ci tt he i nfor m at i on. ” I d. Fi nal l y , t he S econd C i r cui t i n U ni t ed S t at es v. O r t i z, 136 F. 3d 882, 884 ( 2d C i r . 1997) r el i ed on the ana l y s i s i n I ves t erand F lana gan t o hol d a def endanthas t he17

bur den t o come for w ar d w i t h i nfor m at i on t hatqual i fi es fort he s afe t y v alve
. T he Second C i r cui tconcl uded the G overnm entdoes nothave a dut yt o s ol i ci ti nfor m at i on fr om t he d e f e n d a n t. W e j oi n t he Second, Four t h, Fi fth, and Si xt h C i r cui t s and concl ude the G overnm ent had no obl i gat i on t o s eek i nfor m at i on fr om St anl eydes pi t e hi s offe rt o pr ovi de addi t i onal i nfor m at i on. T he pl ai n l anguage of s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 5) unequi vocal l yr equi r es “an a ffi r m at i ve
a c t b y th e d e f

e n d a n t tru th f

u lly d isc lo sin g a ll th e in f o rm a tio n h e p o ss e ss e s th a t co n c e rn s h is
o f f e n s e o r r e la te d o f

f e n s e s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . A d u , 8 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 4 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A defe ndant ’ s aff

i r m at i ve dutyt o “

pr ovi de to th e G o v e rn m e n t a ll i nfor m at i on and evi dence ” cannot , byt he veryw or ds of the s t atut e, be met byonl ydi s cl os i ng s o me i nfor m at i on and
m ak ing the r e s t a v a il ab le at th e re q u est o f th e G o v ern m en t. T h e sa fe tyv alve ’s disclo su re pr ovi s i on r equi r es a def endantt o “pr ovi de” i n fo r m at i on. T hi s t er m w oul d be r ender ed
m eani ngl es s i f a defe ndant coul d qual i fyfort he s afe t y - val ve adj us t m entbys i m pl yopeni ng h is m o u th a n d e x p re ss in g a w ill in g n e ss to p ro v id e in f o rm a tio n . T h e p u rp o se o f th e sa f e ty
v alve is t o b en ef

it“o n lytho se d ef

en d an ts w h o tru ly co o p era te[.]” U n it ed S tat es v . S ch reibe r, 19 1 F
. 3d 10 3, 10 6 (2d C i r. 19 99 ). S t anley did n o m ore than m erel yexp res s hi s w i l l i ng ness to p ro v id e a d d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n . T h is f

a lls sh o rt o f

b e in g th e typ e o f

“ a f f irm a tiv e c o n d u c t” cont empl at ed bythe lang u ag e of the di s cl os ur e pr ovi s i on, and has t he pr act i cal eff ectof shi ft i ng t he res po nsi bil i t y of sat i sfy i ng t he dis cl osure requi rem ent t o t he G ov ernm ent. T hu s,
w e hol d t he onus i s on t he defe ndant t o come for w ar d w i t h al l i nfor m at i on he has conce r ni ng h is re le v a n t c o n d u c t.St anl eyal l eges i n hi s br i ef thatB r ack i s anal ogous beca us e the G overnm ent 4
“ re f u se [ d ] f ro m th e o u tse t” to m e e t w ith h im . S tan ley do e s n o t cite to th e re c o rd to su p p o rtthis all eg ati o n . W e h av e b ee n ab u n d an tl yclea r th at a p artyb ef o re this C o u rt bear s t he r es pons i bi l i t yof ty i ng t he r el evantfac t s t o t he r ecor d i n or dert o carr yt he bur den of pr ovi ng err or . See U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guez- A gui r r e, 108 F. 3d 1228, 1238 n. 8 ( 10t h C i r . 1997)
. T hi s C our thas no r es pons i bi l i t yt o “s i ftt hr ough” the r ecor d t o fi nd su p p o rtfo r th e c lai m an t’ s arg u m en ts. S ee S E C v . T h o m as, 96 5 F
. 2 d 8 2 5 , 8 2 7 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ). 18 I n a l as tat t empt t o per s uade us , St anl ey ar gues t hi s cas e i s s i m i l art o U ni t ed St at es v. B ra c k , 1 8 8 F .3 d 7 4 8 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). In B ra c k , the d e f e n d a n t p ro v id e d th e G o v e rn m e n t a
s t at ement r egar di ng hi s i nvol vement i n a drug cons pi r acya n d m a d e a w ritten re q u e st to
s ubm i tt o a debr i ef

i ng . I d. at762- 763. T he G overnm ent decl i ned t o i nt er vi ew t he def endant beca us e i td i d n o tb e l i e v e t h e t ru t h f u l n e s s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s t a t e me n t s . I d
. a t7 6 3
. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the defenda nt ’ s s afe t y - val ve adj us t m entfi ndi ng t he def endanthad not p ro v id e d th e G o v e rn m e n t w ith a ll th e e v id e n c e h e p o ss e ss e d . Id . at 7 6 2
- 6 3
. T h e S e v e n th C i r cui tr ever s ed. T he courthel d t he def en d an t’ s w r i t t en s t at ement s ( i f trut hful ) combi ned
w ith h is r eq u est t o m ee t w ith the G o v ern m en t, sati sfied th e saf ety -va lve d iscl o su re
r equi r ement . T he courtnot ed the di s t r i ctcour tbas ed i t s deci s i on on t he i ncompl et enes s of t he def endant ’ s s t at ement s , and r eas oned the G ov ernment“coul d notcompl ai n of i ncompl et enes s w hen i tr efus es t o al l ow [th e defe ndant ] t o fi ni s h t el l i ng hi s s t or y ” by
r e b u f f i n g h i s i n v i t a t i o n t o i n t e r v i e w h i m. U nl i ke i n B r ack, St anl ey never r eques t ed an i nt er vi ew w i t h t he G overnm ent . St anl ey 4
m er el ym ade a s t at ement of w i l l i ngness. I n B r ack, t he courtexpl ai ned that“a de fenda nt
c a n n o t sa tisf

yth e d isc lo su re re q u ire m e n t sim p ly b y n o tif y in g th e c o u rt of h is w ill in g n e ss to19

s ubm i tt o a s af

et y valve i nt er vi ew . ” I d. at763 ( ci t i ng O r t i z, 136 F. 3d at884; A du, 82 F. 3d 119, 124 ( 6t h C i r . 1996) ; and I ves t er , 75 F. 3d 184- 85) ( emphasi s added)
. T hus , B r ack doe s
n o t aid S tan ley. In c o n tra st w ith th e p re se n t c a se , th e d e f e n d a n t in B ra c k “ a c ted a f f irm a tiv e ly byi nvi t i ng t he governm ent( i n w r i t i ng) t o i nt er vi ew hi m . ” I d. Such w as nott he ca s e her e. T o t h e e x t e n t Br a c k c a n b e r e a d t o h o l d t h e Go v e r n me n t ’ s r e f u s a l t o i n t e r v i e w a defe ndantatt he def

endant ’ s r eques tconcl us i vel y s at i s fi es t he di s cl os ur e r equi r ement of t he saf ety -va lve p rov isi o n , w e d ec li n e to f o ll o w B rac k
. W e h o ld tod aythat the d ef en d an t bea rs th e re sp o n sib ili tyto c o m e f o rth w ith a ll ev id e n c e a n d in f o r m a tio n h e h a s c o n c e rn in g h is of f e n s e a n d r e l e v a n t c o n d u c t . W e a g r e e wi t h th e Se c o n d Ci r c u i t t h a t t h e Gover nm ent has “no gene r al obl i gat i on” t o gr ant a defenda nta debr i efi ng. Schr ei ber , 191 F. 3d at108. A nd
a lth o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o o p e ra tio n w o u ld a lw a y s b e h e lp f u l to a d e f

e n d a n t s e e k in g to sati sfythe d iscl o su re req u ir em en t of the s af etyv alve , su ch co o p era ti o n is l eg all yu n n ec essa ry for a defenda nt t o compl y w i t h t he s t atut e’ s di s cl os ur e r equi r ement . A s w e di s cus s ed i nfr a , § 5 C 1
. 2 (a)(5) requir es a defenda nt to d iscl ose the in fo rm ati o n h e h as in h is po sses sion
. In t hi s cas e, St anl eyknew he w i t hhel d i nfor m at i on fr om t he G overnm enti n hi s pr offe r and w as atl i ber t yt o di s cl os e s uch i nfor m at i on i n s ubs equentpr offe r s i f he s o des i r ed. St anl eyt ook a gambl e and hi s gambl e di d not pay off. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hat St anl ey ’ s offe rt o pr ovi de addi t i onal i nfor m at i on upon the G overnm ent ’ s r eques tdi d not
sa tisf yth e sa f e ty -v a lv e d isc lo su re re q u ire m e n t. AF F I RMED
.