1The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Thomas D.

Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1671

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Santiago Felix Avendano, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 7, 2000

 Filed: February 16, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Santiago Felix Avendano appeals from the final judgment of the District Court1

after he pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with possessing cocaine

with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994). On appeal,

Avendano challenges the denial of his motion to suppress and the Court’s refusal to

grant him safety valve relief.
-2-

After carefully reviewing the suppression-hearing transcript, we conclude the

District Court did not err in denying Avendano’s motion to suppress, because the

government’s evidence supports the Court’s findings that the officer had probable

cause for initially stopping the car Avendano was driving after watching him tailgate

other cars; that the officer’s initial questions to Avendano were within the scope of a

reasonable traffic stop; and that, once the officer returned Avendano’s license and

registration, he was free to go, and the ensuing conversation–during which the officer

asked for and obtained permission to search the car–was consensual. See United States

v. Grennell, 148 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 1998) (officer has probable cause for

stopping vehicle when driver has committed traffic violation); United States v. GalvanMuro, 141 F.3d 904, 906-07 (8th Cir. 1998) (after officer returns license and

registration, reasonable person would feel free to leave, so any ensuing questioning is

consensual); United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1994) (when officer

lawfully stops vehicle, questions reasonably related to stop are also lawful), cert.

denied, 514 U.S. 1134 (1995). In addition, the District Court did not clearly err in

determining that, under the totality of the circumstances, Avendano’s consent to search

the car was voluntary. See United States v. Martinez, 168 F.3d 1043, 1046-47 (8th

Cir. 1999).

Finally, we conclude the District Court did not err in refusing to grant Avendano

safety valve relief based on Avendano’s steadfast refusal to discuss his knowledge of

the offense with the government and his contention that he did not know anything about

the offense, a position which conflicted with his change-of-plea hearing statement that

he knew he was illegally transporting narcotics. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5) (1994) and

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5) (1998) (court shall impose sentence

without regard to mandatory minimum if, inter alia, defendant truthfully provides all

information and evidence defendant has concerning offense); United States v. Kang,

197 F.3d 927, 928 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (clearly erroneous standard of review;

defendant must prove he is entitled to safety valve relief by preponderance of

evidence). 
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.