# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued Jul y 8 , 20 10 Deci ded J uly20 , 20 10 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 10
- 1074 U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. ALONS O P ALM ER O, D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o f I ndi an a, Indi an apo l i s Di vi si o n. N o. 1: 08 CR 00 173 Dav i d F . Ham i l to n, Cir cu i tJudg e, Si t t i ng b y Des ignat i on . O R D E R A l onso Pal m er o ple aded gui l ty to one count o fdi str ibuti ng and one count o f po ss es singwi thi nt en t to di st r ibut e 50 0 g r ams o rmor e o fa mix tu r e o rs ubs ta nc e co nt aini ng m etha m phe ta m i ne . See 21 U . S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) . He re cei ved co ncurr ent t er m s o f18 0 m onths’ im p risonm en t on eac h ch arge. Palm ero ap p eals his sent en ce, arguing th at th e d istri ct cou rt er re d by refu sin g t o a p p ly th e “ sa fet y v alv e” gu id elin e, U .S.S.G . § 5C 1.2 (a), w h ich w ou ld h av e d ec re as ed h is offe n se lev el, see id. § 2 D1. 1( b) ( 11) , and yi el ded a l ower guidel i nes ra nge. W e a ffi rm the sente nce. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 10
- 1074 Page 2

Fr om M ay to October20 08, Pal m er o sol d at l eas t 3 . 13 ki l ogr am s o f m et h am p h et am in e t o a co n fid en tia l info rm an t. Po lice th en fou n d in h is h om e a n d on h is pe r s o n a n a ddi t i o na l3 . 4 9 k i l o g r a ms. Aft e rh e p l e a de d gui l t y b utb e f o r e h e wa s s e nt e nc e d, Pal m er o m et w i th the go ver nm ent in an at tem pt to bene fi t fro m the safety - val ve gui del i ne, U . S. S. G. § 5 C1. 2( a) . The c hi effuncti on o f§ 5C1. 2( a) i s t o perm i t di str i ct c ourt s t o i m pose sente nces bel ow an othe rwis e- m andator y s tatutor y m i ni m um . 1 8 U.S . C. § 3 553( f ) . That functi on would nothave ai ded Pal m er o because hi s drug quanti ty pla ced hi m i n a r ange abov e the st atuto rym i ni m um , but he so ught a 2- l eve lr educti on in offense l eve lthat U . S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1( b) ( 11) pro vi des to drug offenders w ho qual i fy forthe safetyval ve. A defen dan t se ek i nga s afety - va l ve r edu ct i o n mustmeetfi ve r equi r ement s, b utthe o nl y o ne a t i ss ue he r e i s th e fi fth : “ no t l at ertha n a t th e ti m e o fthe s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, the defe nd ant has tr uthful lypr o vi ded to the Go ve r nm en t al li nf o r m at i o n a nd e vi den ce the defe nd ant has co ncer ni ng the o ffense oro ffenses thatwere part ofthe sam e co urse o f c o nd uc to ro fa c o mm o n s c he me o rp l a n. ” U. S . S . G. § 5 C 1.2 (a) (e m p h as is a d d ed ). U n for tu n at ely , Pa lm er o b eg an th e p ro ffer se ss ion by lyin g a b ou t t h e id en tit y of h is m etham phetam i ne suppli er . Not unti lthe gov er nm ent c onfro nted hi m with e vi dence co nt r adi ct i nghi s st at ement s di d Pa l m er o r ec an t an d pr o vi de a ne w ve r si o n. T he gov er nm ent di d not hav e a ny ev i dence to co ntra dictPal m er o’ s s eco nd st or y. A t s entencing the go ver nm ent c onte nd ed that Pal m er o did notqual i fy fora safety valve red uc tion bec au se his d isclosures w ere not tru th ful and com p lete. Th e d istri ct cou rt agr eed, but w ent o n to expl ain that i t would in any eve nt have used i ts disc re ti on t o se nt en ce Pa l m er o t o 1 80 months , e ve n i fhe ha d qua l i fi ed f o rthe s afety v al ve . ( W i th o utthe safety valve, Palm ero’s adjusted offen se level of 34 and crim inal history category of I yie ld ed a gu id elin es ran ge of 15 1 t o 1 88 m on th s.) O n ap p ea l Pa lm er o a rg u es th at h e s h ou ld ha ve gotten a 2-l evel redu ction in his offen se level un d er U . S. S. G . § 2D 1.1(b)(11). A defen dan t ha s th e bur deno fpr o vingb y a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe e vi den ce tha t he quali fi es f orthe safetyval ve . U nite d States v. P once, 3 58 F . 3d 46 6, 4 68 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) . I fthe gov er nm ent c hal l enges the tr uthful ness orco m ple tenes s o fhi s di scl osur e, he m ust pro du ce ev id en c e t o p er su ad e t h e d ist ric t c ou rtth at th e d isc los u re w as tru th fu l an d co m p let e. U nited Sta tes v. M a rtinez , 30 1 F . 3d 860, 86 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) . On appeal, we re vi ew f orcl ear er ro r the di str i ct c ourt ’ s f actualfi nd i ng tha t a defendant w as not fully t ruthful i n a s afety va lve p ro ffer . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al varado , 326 F.3d 857, 860 (7th C ir. 2003). Pa l m er o a r g ue s th athi s l y i nga t th e pr o ffers es si o n s ho ul d no t di squa l i fy hi m f o rthe sa fet y v alv e b ec au se h e im m ed iat ely rec an te d th e lie a n d , at t h e s am e s es sio n, ult im at ely pr o vi ded a co m pl et e st at emento fhi s cr i m e th atthe g o ve r nm en t di d no t co nt r adi ct . T heN o. 10
- 1074 Page 3

govern m en t cou nt ers tha t Palm ero only recan ted becau se he w as con fronted w ith con trary e v i de nc e ; o the r wi s e , h e mi g hth a v e p e r s i s t e d in hi s f a l s e ho o d. W e hav e e xplained that the s afetyval ve appli es onl y t o thos e who m ake “a go od fait h effo rt ” a n d “d o th eir be st ” t o c oo p er at e fu lly. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cors on , 57 9 F . 3d 804, 81 4 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ), cert. denied, 130 S. C t. 1751 ( 2010 ); U nite d States v. M arin , 14 4 F . 3d 1085 , 10 95 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ar r i ngt on , 73 F. 3d 144, 14 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) . Lying to in ve st iga to rs d em on st ra te s b ad fait h an d w ill d isq u alify a d efe n d an t fo r th e s afe ty va lve . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ram unn o , 13 3 F . 3d 476, 48 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) . Pal m er o confi ned his l yi ng to j ust o ne se ssi on, but by l yi ng ab out hi s s upp l i erhe dem onst ra ted bad f ai th and cas t doubt on th e t ru th of h is ot h er , un c on tr ad ict ed st at em en ts . SeeM arin , 144 F.3d at10 95 ; Arr i ngt on , 73 F.3d at14 8. T h u s, th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n oterr in fin d in g t h at P alm er o fa iled to m ee t h is bu rd en of sh ow ing com p lete and truth ful disclosu re un d er U . S. S. G . § 5C 1.2( a). W e p re su m e P alm er o’s w ith in -gu id elin es se n te n c e re as on ab le, see Ga ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 38 , 46-4 7 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 537 F.3d 722 , 727 (7th C ir. 20 08 ) , a nd Pa l m er o o ffer s no th i ngt o r eb uttha t pr es um pti o n. Acc o r di ng l y, we AFF I RM the sente nce.