[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13294

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN JOSEPH GARZA, 

a.k.a. Poncho,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00082-KKM-TGW-1

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13294

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Justin Joseph Garza appeals the district court’s finding that 

he was ineligible for safety valve relief. We affirm.

I. 

Garza pleaded guilty to: (1) conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine; (2) distributing and possessing with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine; and (3) possessing with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. 

Garza’s base offense level was thirty-two, but his offense 

level was reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsibility, 

making his final offense level twenty-nine. Based on his offense 

level and lack of criminal history, Garza’s advisory guideline range 

was eighty-seven months to one hundred eight months’ imprisonment. The offenses of conviction each carried a ten-year mandatory minimum, however, so his guideline range became one hundred twenty months’ imprisonment. 

Before sentencing, Garza sought safety valve relief to reduce 

his sentence under guideline section 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. section 

3553(f). Garza argued that he qualified for safety valve relief because he “truthfully provided to the [g]overnment all information 

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 7
21-13294 Opinion of the Court 3

and evidence[] he ha[d] about this offense before the sentencing 

hearing.” Garza argued that he met with “case agents to provide 

the [g]overnment all information and evidence that he had about 

the offense,” including “the transactions, communications[,] and 

specific details of this conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.” 

He told the government that he “was the source of the methamphetamine,” but “the [g]overnment and its agents did not want to 

discuss the specifics of this conspiracy.” 

The government opposed Garza’s eligibility for safety valve 

relief, arguing that he failed to disclose everything he knew about 

the conspiracy. Specifically, the government argued that Garza refused to answer the following questions: (1) “From whom did he 

obtain the methamphetamine?” (2) “How did he come into contact 

with the supplier(s)?” (3) “What was the supplier’s phone number?” 

(4) “What, if any, other numbers did the supplier(s) utilize?” (5) 

“Where did Garza go to obtain the methamphetamine?” (6) “If it 

was someone’s residence, where was it?” (7) “What did this residence look like?” (8) “Who else was in the residence?” (9) “Was 

there any evidence of drug trafficking in the house, such as additional narcotics, money, firearms, or drug paraphernalia?” (10) 

“What did Garza do with the money made from selling methamphetamine?” (11) “What bank accounts, if any, did he use to conceal proceeds?” (12) “How was he able to pay for his antique Chevy 

Caprice with aftermarket additions or his 2019 Dodge Hellcat 

when [he] . . . had no reported income with the State of Florida 

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13294

since 2017?” (13) “Why [we]re these cars registered in the name of 

a family member?” 

At sentencing, Garza argued that the unanswered questions 

didn’t apply to the offenses of conviction. He argued that “the four 

corners of this conspiracy began and ended with this sale” and that 

there was “no evidence or information that during this conspiracy 

there was yet another person who sourced the methamphetamine.” Garza contended that the unanswered questions related to 

“previous conspiracies or previous drug sales that ha[d] nothing to 

do with this conspiracy.” He maintained that this conspiracy consisted of “three people”—Garza, the codefendant, and the confidential informant—and that “[h]e was the source” of the methamphetamine “for this conspiracy.” 

The government argued that Garza was indicted for conspiring with “other persons, both known and unknown,” and that the

conspiracy included the unknown participants in Garza’s “chain of 

distribution.” The government argued that Garza knew more 

about where the methamphetamine came from and that he withheld information from the government. 

The district court agreed with the government. The district 

court explained that Garza wasn’t “claiming that he actually [wa]s 

the originator of the drugs.” “[T]he natural inference” from 

Garza’s guilty plea to a conspiracy charge was that “he would be 

able to say where he got his drugs from,” explained the district 

court. Because Garza failed to disclose that information, the district court found Garza ineligible for safety valve relief. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 7
21-13294 Opinion of the Court 5

II. 

We review the district court’s factual finding in denying 

Garza’s safety valve relief for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106 

F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997) (reviewing the district court’s finding that the defendant didn’t provide a “complete and honest disclosure to the government” for clear error).

III. 

Safety valve relief “allows for sentencing without regard to 

any statutory minimum, with respect to certain offenses,” United 

States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation 

omitted), as long as the defendant satisfies the criteria established 

in section 5C1.2, Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. Under section 5C1.2, “not 

later than the time of the sentencing hearing,” the defendant must

“truthfully provide[] to the [g]overnment all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that 

were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme 

or plan.” § 5C1.2(a)(5).

We’ve called this part of section 5C1.2 the “tell all” provision. United States v. Johnson, 375 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004)

(cleaned up). “[T]o meet its requirements, the defendant has an 

affirmative responsibility to ‘truthfully disclose to the government 

all information and evidence that he has about the offense and all 

relevant conduct.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The burden is on the 

defendant to come forward and to supply truthfully to the government all the information that he possesses about his involvement 

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13294

in the offense, including information relating to the involvement 

of others and to the chain of the [drug] distribution.” Cruz, 106 

F.3d at 1557.

The district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Garza 

didn’t “tell all” about the chain of methamphetamine distribution. 

It was Garza’s burden to show that he disclosed to the government 

everything he knew about the conspiracy and his possession and 

distribution of the methamphetamine. See id. But Garza refused 

to disclose anything about how he obtained the methamphetamine. While Garza argues that he disclosed everything he knew 

about “this conspiracy” and that the source of the methamphetamine was part of “previous conspiracies or previous drug sales that 

ha[d] nothing to do with this conspiracy,” we’ve already rejected a 

similar argument. See United States v. Camacho, 261 F.3d 1071, 

1073 (11th Cir. 2001). A defendant’s “refusal to reveal his source” 

of the drugs after pleading guilty to a drug conspiracy offense disqualifies him from safety valve relief for failing to “truthfully provide the government with all of the information he had concerning 

the offense.” Id.

Section 5C1.2 requires disclosure of a broad range of information, Johnson, 375 F.3d at 1302, and that information includes 

details known to the defendant about the source of the drugs in a 

drug conspiracy case, Camacho, 261 F.3d at 1073. Garza conceded 

that he didn’t disclose information about the source of the methamphetamine, so the district court’s finding that he failed to “tell 

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 6 of 7
21-13294 Opinion of the Court 7

all” under section 5C1.2 was not clearly erroneous. That made 

Garza ineligible for safety valve relief. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-13294 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 7 of 7