Opinion ID: 203966
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The change in Padilla's story

Text: Padilla argues that the district court clearly erred in concluding that he had changed his account of the offense. We disagree. Even assuming, arguendo, that the two interviews differed in purpose, as Padilla argues, that difference cannot account for the material alterations Padilla made to his story on retelling. According to Padilla's initial account, he stole the bag containing the contraband when he was visiting a friend [and] observed a man hiding a gym bag in the trunk of a vehicle. He stole it thinking that maybe it was full of cash. After the Probation Officer expressed concern that Padilla had not provided her with complete, accurate and truthful information, Padilla told a different story. He stated that he knew the owners of the bag, that they owed him $5,000, and that they had failed to pay him -19- back. During his safety-valve interview, he also stated that he had previously purchased drugs from the owners of the bag and that he expected the bag to contain drugs when he stole it. Even if the rough outlines of the two stories are consistent, the details and their implications differ markedly, and it cannot be clear error for a sentencing court to take note of such differences and find in those differences a lack of truthfulness.