* The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1456

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Marileen Bonita Edgar, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 14, 2005 Filed: November 22, 2005

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Marileen Bonita Edgar pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocai ne base. The district court * imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Edgar now appeals her sentence arguing the court erroneously concluded she did not qualify for relief from the statutory minimum under the safety valve, 18 U. S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We affirm.-2- To qualify for safety valv e relief, Edgar had the bur den to show, among other things, that she had truthfully provided th e government with all information about her crime before sentencing. See United States v. Santana , 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8 thCir. 1998). We review the district court’s deci sion that Edgar did not carry her burden for clear error. See United States v. Romo , 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8 th Cir. 1996). At the proffer session, Edgar identified her source as Ellis McGee, but could not provide an address or phone number for him. Because the government had information that Edgar’s source was some one else, the governme nt believed Edgar had not been fully truthful and thus opposed application of the safety valve. At a sentencing hearing on the issue, the officerinvolved in the proffer session testified that although Edgar had identified her sour ce as McGee, the officer had received information from an informant that BarnardVan was Edgar’s supplier. The officer also testified he was familiar with Edgar and he r relationship with Van. Van operated an escort business and Edgar had been arrested in 2001 and 2002 for prostitution. Further, the officer testifie d Edgar’s codefendant identif ied Van as Edgar’s supplier. In the officer’s opinion, Edgar’s supplier wa s Van, not McGee. Edgar testified she had received drugs from McGee for about si x months, and had never sold drugs for Van, who was a friend. After hearing the testimony, the district found the officer’s testimony was credible and E dgar had not been substantially truthful in her proffer. On appeal, Edgar argues the Government breached an oral promise to recommend safety valve relief if she satisfi ed the statute’s requirements. Edgar contends she was truthful at the proffer a nd provided all information she could. The district court’s contrary finding is not clearly erroneous. The officer’s testimony at the hearing provides a sufficient basis for a finding that Edgar was not truthful about the identity of her supplier, and was thus not truthful about her offense. See United States v. Weekly , 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8 th Cir. 1997). The court’s decision that the officer was credible is virtually unreviewable on appeal, and the court did not commit-3- clear error in crediting the testimony of th e officer over Edgar’s testimony. United States v. Candie , 974 F.2d 61, 64 (8 th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm Edgar’s sentence.

______________________________