Opinion ID: 2976100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the provision at issue

Text: Here, Mr. Dottery argues that the district court erred in not finding that he satisfied the debriefing requirement of the safety valve provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5). To determine whether the court did indeed apply the provision incorrectly, it is first necessary to examine the language of the provision and how it has traditionally been interpreted by the Sixth Circuit. The relevant subsection of the provision reads: (5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government 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, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement. § 5C1.2(a)(5). The Sixth Circuit has held that § 5C1.2(5) “clearly require[s] an affirmative act by the defendant truthfully disclosing all the information he possesses that concerns his offense or related offenses.” Adu, 82 F.3d 119 at 124. The related offenses must be “part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan [as the convicted offense].” Id. (quoting § 5C1.2(5)). See also United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997). A defendant’s statement that he has given the government “all they asked,” even if true, does not satisfy his burden of proof under the provision. Id. In addition, the disclosure requirement does not hinge on whether the particular conviction at issue happens to be for conspiracy or for a substantive drug offense. Maduka, 104 F.3d No. 06-1049 USA v. Dottery Page 8 at 894. If the ability of a defendant to commit a drug offense depends on the active participation of other people, information about such participation constitutes information about both “the offense of conviction” and “relevant conduct.” Id. The Court has stated that these stringent requirements reflect the fact that the safety valve “was intended to benefit only those defendants who truly cooperate.” United States v. O’Dell, 247 F.3d 655, 675 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Martin, 144 F.3d 1085, 1094 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 916 (1998)). The purpose of the Act was to “permit a narrow class of defendants, those who are the least culpable participants in such [drug trafficking] offenses, to receive strictly regulated reductions in prison sentences for mitigating factors currently recognized under federal sentencing guidelines.” H.R. REP. NO . 103-460 (1994), 103d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1994 WL 107571 (Leg.Hist.), at 4 (emphasis added).