[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10238

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cr-00167-PGB-KRS-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

HECTOR MANUEL TALAVERA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 25, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-10238 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Hector Manuel Talavera appeals his 60-month sentence after pleading guilty 

to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of 

cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(b)(1)(B). Talavera contends that the 

district court clearly erred when it denied him a safety valve reduction and 

sentenced him to the applicable statutory minimum. Specifically, he argues that 

because he provided the government with a truthful and complete proffer of all the 

information he knew regarding the offense, he was eligible for safety valve relief 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

A district court’s factual findings and subsequent denial of safety valve relief 

are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 

1997). For offenses of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, the safety valve provisions of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 enable a district court to disregard the 

statutory minimum sentence if five requirements are met. Id.; U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). 

Relevant to this appeal, the fifth requirement for safety valve relief is that, by the 

time of sentencing, the defendant must truthfully and completely provide the 

government with all information the defendant has concerning the offense. 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). The fact, however, that the defendant 

does not have relevant or useful information, or that the defendant has information 

that the government already knows, will not prevent the defendant from satisfying 

this requirement. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). A defendant who seeks application of 

Case: 16-10238 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

the safety valve bears the burden of proving the satisfaction of the requirements. 

Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. 

A district court cannot apply the safety valve if it determines that the 

defendant withheld information, even if the information would not have been 

helpful to the government’s investigation. United States v. Figueroa, 199 F.3d 

1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2000). Where the defendant’s charges include a drug 

conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, a complete proffer under the safety valve 

provision may include information “relating to the involvement of others and to the 

chain of the narcotics distribution.” Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. Even if a defendant 

claims ignorance as a justification for nondisclosure, substantial evidence to the 

contrary will support a district court’s finding that the proffer does not meet the 

requirement of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). See id.

The district court did not clearly err in denying Talavera a safety valve 

reduction and declining to sentence him below the statutory minimum. It properly 

found that Talavera withheld information from the government, making his presentencing proffer incomplete under the safety valve provisions of § 5C1.2. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-10238 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 Page: 3 of 3