FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 30, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13256 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 2 7 7 - CR- T- 3 0 - TBM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A R U N A S M I L K I N T A S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 30, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Def endant- Appellant’s na

me is Arunas Milkintas. It was transpose d in the Indictment as 1 “ Milkinta s Aru

na s. ” Th e Judgment, ho wever, us e d thec or re c t na me“ Ar un a s Mi lkinta s, ”and

thi s op ini on wi ll re fer to th eDe fend ant- Appe lla nt a s Aru na s Mi lkinta s. Both p art ies discuss the two-leve l, safety-valvereduc tion as beingprovided in U.S.S.G. 2 § 2D1 . 1 (b)( 6). The a

mendments to the Guidelines ef fec tive for the 2004 Ma

nual adde d a new provision at § 2D1.1(b)( 5), shiftingthe safety-valve provision of that section from (b)( 6) to (b)( 7). See U.S.S.G. Supp. t o App. C, Amend. 667. Dueto the addition of enha ncement s re l at ing to the distribution of anabolic steroids, which b ec ame effe ctive November 1, 2005, the sa fety-valve reduc tion is currently

located a t § 2D1.1(b)( 9). See U. S . S . G. S upp. to App. C, Amend. 681. As Milkint as was sentenced under the 2004 version of the Guide lines, this opini on will refer to the provision as (b)( 7). 2 A ru n a s M ilk in ta s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to 1 d is tr ib u te c o c a in e w h ile a b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to U n ite d S ta te s ju r is d ic tio n , in v io la tio n o f

4 6 U .S .C . ap p . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , a n d c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e w h ile a b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to U n ite d S ta te s ju r is d ic tio n , in vi ol a t i on of

46 U . S . C . app. § 1903( a ) , ( j ) . M i l ki nt a s a s s e r t s the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e o f

h is k n o w in g a n d w illf

u l p o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith th e in te n t to di s tr i but e a nd i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

hi s know i ng pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a drug c o n s p ir a c y to s u s ta in th e c o n v ic tio n s . M ilk in ta s a ls o ap p e a ls h is 2 3 5 - m o n th c onc ur r e nts e nt e nc e s i m pos e d a s a r e s ul tof hi s c onvi c t i ons . S pe c i f i c a l l y, he cont ends the di stri ctcourterre d b y denyi ng hi m sa fe ty- val ve consi dera t i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) , U . S . S . G. §§ 5C 1. 2 and 2D 1. 1(b)(7). We c on cl ud e there w as 2 s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

ora j ur y t o c onvi c tM i l ki nt a s of both drug of

f e ns e s , a nd the d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o te r ri n d e n y i n g h i m s a f e ty - v a l v e r e l i e f

. Ac c o r d i n g l y, we a f f ir m h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s .3 I . B AC KG RO UN D M ilk in ta s , a lo n g w ith 1 6 o th e r s , w a s in d ic te d f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e, and con spi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e, fi ve or m ore ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne w hi l e onboa r d the M /V Y a l t a , a ve s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s , 46 U . S . C . app. § 1903( a ) , ( g) , ( j ) . O ne of

the defe nd ant s, E fr en D ani el M ar qu ez -S i l va, ent er ed i nt o a pl eaagre em entt o t es t i fy agai nstM i l ki nt as and t he ot her defe nd ant s. T he ca se w entt o t ri al , and t he j ury w as u n a b le to r e a c h a v e r d ic t a s to M ilk in ta s , b u t a c q u itte d th e o th e r1 5 d e f e n d a n ts . T h e G o v e r n m e n t p r o c e e d e d w ith a s e c o n d tr ia l a g a in s t M ilk in ta s . A tthe se cond tri al , the G ov ernm entpres ent ed the t es t i m on y of C oastG uard and F B I a gent s, as w el l as M ar qu ez -S i l va, w ho w as on bo ar d t he Y a lta a t th e tim e it w a s boa r de d by the C oa s tG ua r d, a nd L a z a r o F r e ge l , a f e de r a l pr i s one rt o w hom M i l ki nt a s s poke w hi l e i n the s a m e hol di ng c e l l . M i l ki nt a s m ove d f ora j udgm e nt of ac qu i tt al atthe cl ose of the G ov ernm ent ’ s c as e, w hi ch w as deni ed. M i l ki nt as th e n p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e , a n d th e G o v e r n m e n t p r e s e n te d r e b u tta l te s tim o n y . M i l ki nt a s di d notr e ne w hi s m ot i on f ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a tthe c l os e of the e v id e n c e . T h e ju r y f

o u n d M ilk in ta s g u ilty o n b o th c h a r g e s . In the P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport(P S I) , the prob at i on of fi ce r re com m ended a base a nd t ot al of fe nse l evel of 38 , U . S . S . G. § 2 D 1. 1(a) (3), (c )( 1),4

w i th a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of I , r e s ul t i ng i n a G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 235 t o 293 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he prob at i on of fi ce r not ed M i l ki nt as ’ s s t atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um w as t en ye ar s pursuantt o 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B ). M i l k i n t as o b

j ect ed t o th e p ro b at i o n o f fi cer n o treco m m en d i n g h e receive safetyv a lv e c o n s id e r a tio n . M ilk in ta s ’s o b je c tio n s ta te d h e “h a s o ris w illin g to tru th f u lly prov i de i nform at i on t o t he go vernm ent . ” T he prob at i on of fi ce r r es po nd ed he w as no taw ar e w hether M i l ki nt as had sat i sf i ed the prere qu i si t es for s af ety- val ve re l i ef unde rU . S . S . G. § 5C 1. 2( a ) ( 5) , a nd tha tthe G ove r nm e ntha d noti nf or m e d hi m of w h eth er M i l k i n t as h ad sat i sfi ed th o se p rereq u i si t es. M i l ki nt a s a l s o f i l e d a se nt enci ng m em orandu m , ar gu i ng he had m etthe cr i t er i a f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

. M i l ki nt a s ne ve rpr of

f e r e d i nf or m a t i on r e ga r di ng the drug c ons pi r a c y i n e i the rthe w r itte n o b

je c tio n s to th e P S I o rth e s e n te n c in g m e m o r a n d u m . A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , M ilk in ta s c o n tin u e d to c o n te n d h e w a s e lig ib le f o rs a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. M i l ki nt as as se rt ed he had con t ac t ed the G ov ernm entt o l et th e m k n o w h e w a n te d to s p e a k w ith th e m , a n d a s s e r te d th e G o v e r n m e n t s h o u ld have m ade a n ef

fortt o setup an i nt ervi ew w i th h i m . T he G ov ernm entre spon ded tha tM i l ki nt a s ha d onl y i nf or m e d the m tha the w a s a va i l a bl e t o be i nt e r vi e w e d the d a y b e f o r e th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , a n d th a t th e G o v e r n m e n t h a d n o o b lig a tio n to s e e k M i l ki nt a s outf

ora n i nt e r vi e w . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound “ the s a f

e ty va l ve5

prov i si on s a re no tappl i cabl e t o t he defendanti n t hi s s i tuat i on , ” a nd se nt ence d M ilk in ta s to 2 3 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW M i l ki nt a s di d notm ove the di s tr i c tc our tf ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a tthe c lo s e o f a ll th e e v id e n c e , th u s w e w ill r e v e r s e h is c o n v ic tio n s o n ly to p r e v e n t a m a n if e s t m is c a r r ia g e o f

ju s tic e . U

n ite d S ta te s v . H a m b lin , 91 1 F . 2d 551, 556–57 (1 1t h C i r . 19 90 ). T hi s s t andard requi re s “ a f i nd i ng that‘ the evi dence on a key el em entof the of

fe nse i s s o t enuo us thata c on vi ct i on w ou l d b e s ho cki ng . ’ ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . T a p ia , 761 F . 2d 1488, 1492 ( 1 1th C i r . 1985) ( quot i ng U n i t ed S ta t es v . L a n ders , 4 8 4 F . 2 d 9 3 , 9 4 (5 th C i r . 1 9 7 3 )). In m ak i n g th i s d et erm i n at i o n , w e m u st v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e g o v e r n m e n t a n d a c c e p t a ll r e a s o n a b le in f

e r e n c e s a n d c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s th a t s u p p o r t th e ju r y ’s v e r d ic t. H a m b lin , 91 1 F . 2d a t557.

“ W hen revi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s s af ety- val ve deci si on , w e r evi ew for c l ea r er ro r a d istrict co u rt’s fa ctu al d eter m in atio n s, . . . [an d ] de no vo the court ’ s l egal i nt erpret at i on of the st atut es and sent enci ng gu i del i nes. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . P o y a to , 4 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) .6 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Su f f i ci ency of

E vi dence M i l ki nt a s c ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e of

hi s gui l tof

know i ng pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a drug c ons pi r a c y a nd hi s gui l tof know i ng a nd w i l l f

ul pos s e s s i on of a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e . H e a s s e r t s the onl y t e s t i m ony r e s ul t i ng i n hi s c onvi c t i on w as thatof a s i ng l e c oo pera t i ng G ov ernm entw i tness , M ar qu ez -S i l va. M i l ki nt as c ont e nds the e vi de nc e a ttr i a l e s t a bl i s he d onl y tha the , a S pa ni s h a nd R us s i a n/ L i thua ni a n s pe a ke r , pr ovi de d the l e gi t i m a t e s e r vi c e s of r e c rui t i ng a L i thu ani an cr ew for the Y a lta , a nd tr a ns l a t i ng the c r e w ’ s i ns truc t i ons , s a l a r y a nd p a y m e n t in f

o r m a tio n f

r o m th e r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f th e s h ip ’s o w n e r s to th e c r e w . A ft erthe shi p w entt o sea , the evi dence s ho w ed on l y thatM i l ki nt as tra nsl at ed i ns truc t i ons f

r om M a r que z - S i l va t o the L i thua ni a n c r e w t o a s s i s ti n unl oa di ng the drug s of f the Y a lta . H e c on t ends there w as l i tt l e or no evi dence pres ent ed that w hen h e s etou tfor s eaon the Y a lta , h e h a d a n y k n o w le d g e th a t th e v o y a g e w o u ld in c lu d e a d ru g o f

f lo a d a t s e a . E ve n i f M a r que z - S i l va ha d be e n the onl y w i tne s s , w e ha ve he l d the u n c o r r o b o r a te d te s tim o n y o f a n a c c o m p lic e is s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic tio n if it is n o t o n its f

a c e in c r e d ib le o ro th e r w is e in s u b s ta n tia l. U n i t e d S ta t e s v . L e Q u i re , 9 4 3 F .2 d 1 5 5 4 , 1 5 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . M a r q u e z - S ilv a ’s te s tim o n y is n o t in c r e d ib le7

o n its f a c e a n d is n o t o th e r w is e in s u b s ta n tia l. Se e i d. S pe c i f i c a l l y, M a r que z - S i l va t es t i fi ed thathe and M i l ki nt as di sc usse d t he det ai l s of the drug tra nsfe r bef ore bo ar di ng the Y

a lta , and t hataf

t erthe Y a lta w a s unde r w a y, M i l ki nt a s ( 1) ha d the c r e w be gi n c ons truc t i on of c om pa r tm e nt s t o hi de the c oc a i ne ; ( 2) m a na ge d the c r e w in b r in g in g th e c o c a in e o n b o a r d ; a n d ( 3 ) o r d e r e d th e c r e w to ta k e s te p s to m a s k the pr e s e nc e of

c oc a i ne r e s i due . E ve n though the G ove r nm e nt ’ s pr oof of M i l ki nt a s ’ s know l e dge of , a nd pa r t i c i pa t i on i n, the c ons pi r a c y de pe nds he a vi l y on the t es t i m on y of aco-defe nd antw i th a pri or cr i m i nal hi st ory t es t i fy i ng as partof a pl e a a r r a nge m e nt , the j ur y w a s f r e e t o f i nd M a r que z - S i l va c r e di bl e a nd w e w i l l not in tru d e o n th a t d e c is io n . Se e U ni t e d S tat e s v . C alde ron , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 19 97 ) ( st at i ng i ti s the excl usi ve prov i nce of the j ury t o d et erm i ne w hether a w i tness i s c re di bl e) . M a r que z - S i l va w a s notthe onl y w i tne s s w ho t e s t i f i e d tha tM i l ki nt a s kne w of th e c o n s p ir a c y . M ilk in ta s ’s c e llm a te , F r e g e l, te s tif ie d th a t M ilk in ta s h a d to ld h im that : (1) M i l ki nt as kn ew abou tthe drug s a nd kn ew they w er e goi ng t o E urop e; (2) thi s w as no tthe fi rs tatt em ptt o sm ug gl e drugs on the Y a lta , a s a pr e vi ous att em pthad b ee n m ade a nd abort ed because the sm ug gl er s on t he Y a lta w er e una bl e t o s uc c e s s f

ul l y l oa d the drugs ; a nd ( 3) M i l ki nt a s w a s i n c ha r ge of the drug jo b a n d g a v e th e c r e w in s tru c tio n s .8

T he t es t i m on y of M ar qu ez -S i l va and F re gel supp ort s afi nd i ng thatM i l ki nt as had k no w l edge of the drug conspi ra cy. We c on cl ud e there w as suf fi ci entevi dence f orthe j ur y t o f

i nd M i l ki nt a s gui l ty of

pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , a nd conspi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e, coca i ne w hi l e abo ar d a vess el s ubj e c tt o U ni t e d S t a t e s j ur i s di c t i on. B . Sa f et y- V alve R el i ef M i l ki nt a s a s s e r t s he w a s de pr i ve d of the oppor tuni ty t o s e e k s a f e ty - va l ve r e lie f , a n d h e d e m o n s tr a te d a g o o d f a ith a tte m p t to c o o p e r a te w ith th e G o v e r n m e n t. M i l ki nt a s a dm i t s he di d nots a t i s f y the r e qui r e m e nttha the m a ke a f ul l a nd truthf

ul pr of f e r , buta s s e r t s he w a s w i l l i ng t o, a nd the G ove r nm e ntm a de i ti m pos s i bl e or i m pr a c t i c a l f

orhi m t o pr of

f e ra l l i nf or m a t i on a nd e vi de nc e c onc e r ni ng the o f f e n s e s .

“ S af ety- val ve re l i ef

al l ow s f or se nt enci ng w i tho utre gard t o any st atut ory m i ni m um , w i th res pectt o cer t ai n o f fe nses , w hen speci fi c r equi re m ent s a re m et . ” U ni t e d S tat e s v . B re hm , 4 4 2 F . 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i n g 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) ) ; see a l so U . S . S . G. § 5C 1. 2. S e c t i on 2D 1. 1( b) ( 7) of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de s f

ora tw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on i n of f e ns e l e ve l f

ora de f e nda ntw ho m ee t s the sa fe ty- val ve cr i t er i a. T he fi ve cr i t er i a a re :

(1) the defendantdo es no thave m ore than 1 cr i m i nal hi st ory p o i n t , as d et erm i n ed u n d er th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es;9 ( 2) the de f

e nda ntdi d notus e vi ol e nc e orc r e di bl e thr e a t s of vi ol ence or po ss es s afi re arm or ot her dangerous w eapo n (or i nd uce anot her part i ci pantt o d o so) i n con nect i on w i th t he of fe nse; ( 3 ) th e o f f e n s e d id n o t r e s u lt in d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily in ju r y to a n y p e r s o n ; ( 4) the de f

e nda ntw a s nota n or ga ni z e r , l e a de r , m a na ge r , or s upe r vi s orof

othe r s i n the of

f e ns e , a s de t e r m i ne d unde rthe s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i nes a nd w as no tengaged i n a cont i nu i ng cr i m i nal ent erpri se , as de f i ne d i n s e c t i on 408 of

the C ontr ol l e d S ubs t a nc e s A c t ; a nd ( 5) notl a t e rtha n the t i m e of the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the de f e nda ntha s truthf

ul l y pr ovi de d t o the G ove r nm e nta l l i nf or m a t i on and evi dence the defendanthas c on ce rni ng the of fe nse or of

fe nses that w e r e pa r tof

the s a m e c our s e of

c onduc torof

a c om m on s c he m e or pl an, bu tthe fa ctthatthe defendanthas no rel evantor usef ul ot her i nf or m a t i on t o pr ovi de ortha tthe G ove r nm e nti s a l r e a dy a w a r e of the i nf or m a t i on s ha l l notpr e c l ude a de t e r m i na t i on by the c our ttha tthe d e f e n d a n t h a s c o m p lie d w ith th is r e q u ir e m e n t. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) ; U . S . S . G. § 5 C 1. 2(a) . T he fi fth cri t er i on i s the on l y one at is s u e in th is c a s e . T h is C ir c u it h a s h e ld th e d e f e n d a n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g e lig ib ility f o rs a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. U ni t e d S tat e s v . Cr uz , 1 0 6 F . 3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 5 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . T h u s , “[ t]h e b u r d e n is o n th e d e f e n d a n t to c o m e f

o r w a r d a n d to s u p p ly tru th f u lly to th e g o v e r n m e n t a ll th e in f o r m a tio n th a t h e p o s s e s s e s a b o u t h is i nvol ve m e nti n the of

f e ns e , i nc l udi ng i nf

or m a t i on r e l a t i ng t o the i nvol ve m e ntof ot hers and t o t he chai n o f the narcot i cs di stri bu t i on . ” I d.I n U n i t ed S tat e s v. Gar c ia , 4 0 5 F. 3 d 1260, 1275 (11th Cir. 2005), we held a def endant who 3 soug ht s entenc ing

under t hesaf ety-val ve p rov is io n wa s enti tl ed t o h ave his c a serema nde d b e c a us e the distr i ct co urtfailed to grant his motion for a c ontinuance of sentenc ing f

or an additional debrie fing . Unlike Ga r

c ia , Milkint as did not

re q ue st a continuanceof sentenc ing in order to provide his prof fer , and Milkint as does not alleg e he mistakenly believed hehad satisfied thesafe ty-valve criteria. In an unpublished opinion, United States v. Stallings , Nos. 03-11905, 03-12620, 04-10882, 2006 WL 2585570 at *7 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2006), we held a defendant who argued the g overnment w a s r e qu i r e d

t o a f f o rd h i mano p p o rtun i ty t o m e e tp ri o r t o s e nt e n c i n gs o h e c o u l d s at i s f y th es a f e tyvalve requirement was not entitled to safe ty-valve relief . In Stallings , thereis no mention that the de fend ant p ro vide d th eg ov e rnment n oti c ethat hewa s w ill ingto m e e t. 10 T hi s C i r c ui tha s nota ddr e s s e d the i s s ue of w he the rthe gove r nm e nt , ha vi ng b e e n p r o v id e d n o tic e th a t a d e f e n d a n t is w illin g to p r o v id e in f o r m a tio n a b o u t a c r im e , is u n d e ra n y o b lig a tio n to s o lic it th a t in f o r m a tio n f

r o m a d e f

e n d a n t. 3 A l though thi s i s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on i n thi s C i r c ui t , a l l C i r c ui t s tha tha ve a d d r e s s e d th is is s u e h a v e h e ld th e g o v e r n m e n t is u n d e rn o o b lig a tio n to s o lic it i nf or m a t i on f

r om de f e nda nt s w ho s e e k t o s a t i s f y the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( f ) ( 5) a nd U .S .S .G. § 5 C 1 .2 ( a ) ( 5 ) r e q u ir e m e n t to p r o v id e in f o r m a tio n . See U

n i t ed S ta t es v . O 'D e ll , 24 7 F . 3d 65 5, 67 5 (6t h C i r . 20 01 ) ( ho l di ng the defendantfa i l ed t o sat i sf y h is b u r d e n to e s ta b lis h e lig ib ility f o rs a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

b y f a ilin g to d is c u s s in det ai l the ext entof hi s m ar i j uana sm ug gl i ng and g row i ng op er at i on , re as on i ng that

“ [ t ] he gove r nm e ntha s no obl i ga t i on t o s ol i c i ti nf or m a t i on tha tc oul d he l p a d e f e n d a n t m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rth e s a f e ty v a lv e ” ) ; U

n ite d S ta te s v . O r tiz , 136 F .3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 4 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o ld in g a d e f e n d a n t’s e x p r e s s io n o f

w illin g n e s s toWe note thereis a circuit split reg arding whether , once a

defendant submits a written 4 prof fer a nd of fers to p ro videa dditi on a l in fo rm atio n if ne eded , theg ov e rnment t hen h a s a duty to 11 p r o v id e th e r e q u ir e d in f o r m a tio n w a s n o t e n o u g h to s a tis f y th e r e q u ir e m e n t to tru th f u lly p r o v id e in f

o r m a tio n to g o v e r n m e n t) ; U ni t e d S tat e s v . F lanagan , 80 F . 3d 143, 146–47 ( 5th C i r . 1996) ( hol di ng the de f e nda ntha s the bur de n of e ns ur i ng he ha s pr ovi de d the r e qui s i t e i nf or m a t i on t o the gove r nm e ntno l a t e rtha n the t i m e of se nt enci ng re gardl es s of w hether the go vernm entre qu es t s s uch i nform at i on ); U ni t ed S tat es v . Iv es t er , 7 5 F .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o ld in g d e f e n d a n ts s e e k in g to a v a il th e m s e lv e s o f s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

“b e a rth e b u r d e n o f

a f f ir m a tiv e ly ac t i ng , no l at erthan sent enci ng , t o ensure the go vernm enti s truthful l y provi ded w i th a l l i nf

or m a t i on a nd e vi de nc e the de f e nda nt s ha ve c onc e r ni ng the r e l e va nt c r i m e s ” ) . I n Iv es t er , the F our th C i r c ui tnot e d the s a f e ty - va l ve pr ovi s i on r e qui r i ng a d e f e n d a n t to “p r o v id e ” in f

o r m a tio n w o u ld b e m e a n in g le s s if a d e f e n d a n t c o u ld qua l i f y f ors a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

m e r e l y by e xpr e s s i ng a w i l l i ngne s s t o pr ovi de i nf or m a t i on, a nd tha ti n s hor t , “ de f e nda nt s c a nnotc l a i m the be ne f i tof [ s a f e ty - va l ve re l i ef ] by the m er e f

ac tthatthe G ov ernm entnever s ou gh tthem ou tfor debri ef i ng . ” 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 8 5

– 8 6 . We a g r e e . W h ile th e n e e d f o ra tr a n s la to rm a y h a v e m a d e it le s s c o n v e n ie n t f

o rM ilk in ta s a n d h is a tto r n e y to m e e t a n d p r e p a r e a p r o f f e rp r io rto the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, i tdoe s notr e l i e ve M i l ki nt a s of hi s bur de n t o pr ovi de i nf or m a t i on. 4interview thedefendant. Com pa re Un i ted States v. Stephenson , 452 F.3d 1173, 1182 ( 10th Cir. 20 06 ) ( “ [T]heonus is on

thede fend ant to c omefo rw ard wi th all inf

or matio n h eha s c on c e rninghis r e l e v antc o n d

u c t .” ); w i th United States v. Brack, 1 8 8 F. 3 d 7 4 8 , 7 6 3 (7 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( h o l di n g a de fend ant’ s tr

uth ful wri tten st ate ment c omb ine d w iththede fend ant’ s o ff e r to s ub mit

to a sa fety valv e inter

v iew s ati s f

ie d th e s a f

e ty v a lv e dis c lo s ur e r e qu ire ment, b ut n o tin g “ a d e f e n d ant cannot satisfy the disclosure requirement simply by notifyi n g th e co urtof his willingness to submit to a safe ty valve inter

view”) . This conflict does not af fec t this case, however, be cause Milkint as did not submit a written proff

er to the G overnment. In Un ited S

tates v . E sp inosa , this Court held the district c ourt, not the g overnment, has the 5 responsibility

to determine thetruthfulness of the infor mation provided to the g overnment, and that it is error f

or the district cour

t to rely on the g overnment’s deter mination of the information’s truth f u ln e s s . 1 7 2 F . 3 d

7 9 5 , 7 9 7 ( 1 1 th

Cir . 1 9 9 9 ) . H e r e , M ilkinta s n e v e r a c tu a lly provided information, thus, his argument reg ardingthe district court’s duty to determ i n e the information’s truthfulness is not at issue. 12 C on tra ry t o M i l ki nt as ’ s a rgum ent , ac t i ng i n g oo d fai th i s anece ss ary c o n d itio n f

o rs a tis f y in g th e s a f

e ty - v a lv e c r ite r ia , n o t a s u f f ic ie n t o n e . E v e n if M ilk in ta s a c te d in g o o d f a ith , h e w a s s till r e q u ir e d to c o m e f o r w a r d a n d tru th f

u lly s u p p ly a ll in f

o r m a tio n th a t h e p o s s e s s e d a b o u t h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e o f f e n s e . See C r uz , 106 F . 3d a t1557. H e a dm i t s tha the di d notdo s o. M i l ki nt a s ha d the bur de n of

c om i ng f

or w a r d w i th a l l i nf

or m a t i on i n hi s pos s e s s i on tha tw a s r e l e va nt to th e c r im in a l e n te rp r is e w ith w h ic h h e w a s in v o lv e d , a n d h e d id n o t f u lf ill h is bu rden. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a f fi rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef . 5 I V . CONCL US I ON T he r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

ora j ur y t o c onvi c tM i l ki nt a s of pos s e s s i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne w hi l e abo ar d a vess el subj ec tt o U ni t ed St at es ju r is d ic tio n a n d c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e w h ile13

aboard a vess el subj ec tt o U ni t ed St at es j uri sdi ct i on . A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ct courtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng M i l ki nt as sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef . T hu s, w e a f

fi rm M i l k i n t as’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.