Opinion ID: 2976100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: The district court record reveals that three sentencing hearings were held in which Defendant’s debriefing was the point at issue. At the first hearing, Defendant’s attorney indicated that he and Mr. Dottery had a “major disagreement” as to how the debriefing should be conducted. Consequently, Mr. Dotterry did not show up to scheduled appointments with the Assistant United States Attorney and an agent from the government. Despite Mr. Dottery’s behavior, the district judge scheduled another sentencing hearing to give Defendant another chance to comply with the safety valve requirement. At the second hearing it was discovered that although Defendant had been interviewed by the government since the last hearing, he had refused to answer critical questions, No. 06-1049 USA v. Dottery Page 9 namely those concerning his source for crack cocaine. However, the district court again had mercy on Mr. Dottery, and scheduled another sentencing hearing to give him an opportunity to “cure the defects” in his debriefing. (JA 163.) At the third hearing it was revealed that Mr. Dottery waited until the morning of the hearing to be debriefed, thus making it difficult for the government to investigate and evaluate his answers before the proceeding. It was at this hearing that the district judge finally determined that Mr. Dottery’s behavior throughout the sentencing process was not the type intended to be rewarded by the safety valve provision, and thus refused to apply it. We agree with the district court’s decision and find no error in the manner in which it reached its decision. Mr. Dottery argues on appeal that the district court incorrectly applied the safety valve provision because it based its decision on his response to questions concerning events that were not relevant to his convicted offense. Mr. Dottery claims that the district court denied him the safety valve because of his responses to questions related to 1) a marijuana charge arising out of an incident in New Mexico, 2) his alleged plan to launder money, and 3) a conversation concerning a $300,000 transaction. Mr. Dottery’s assertion, however, is incorrect. Although the three incidents aforementioned were discussed at Defendant’s last sentencing hearing, they did not serve as the basis of the district court judge’s decision to deny Defendant the safety valve. The district judge made that decision based on the degree of reluctance Defendant exhibited throughout the debriefing process. As the district judge stated, “Mr. Dottery’s debriefing in this case can only be characterized by me—I think I can only characterize it as reluctant. It was not a debriefing of the sort I believe that is contemplated by the letter or the spirit of the provision in Guideline Section 5C1.2.” (JA 220-21.) As mentioned previously, the safety valve provision “was intended to benefit only those No. 06-1049 USA v. Dottery Page 10 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, 119 S.Ct. 265, 142 L.Ed.2d 218 (1998)). It cannot be said that Mr. Dottery “truly cooperated.” In fact, it can barely be said that he cooperated at all. Mr. Dottery missed scheduled meetings with the government, and when he did meet with them he would either fail to answer all of their questions, or meet with them at a time that would not allow the government to verify his answers. Thus, the district court was correct in finding that his actions indicated a resistance to the debriefing process. Mr. Dottery also argues that he fully cured the defects in his debriefing indicated by the district judge, and thus should be granted the safety valve provision. At Defendant’s second sentencing hearing, the district judge noted that Mr. Dottery did not give the government requested information regarding his alleged source for crack cocaine, Tony Tinsley. Thus, the district court scheduled another sentencing hearing to give Defendant time to “cure the defects” in his debriefing. (J.A. 163.) Defendant contends that what the court meant by that statement was that Defendant’s debriefing would be complete if he were to simply answer questions about Tony Tinsley. After the second hearing, Mr. Dottery answered the government’s questions about Mr. Tinsley; thus, Defendant claims, he complied with the debriefing requirement. Although we do not agree with Defendant’s narrow interpretation of the district judge’s statement, accepting his interpretation as correct, his argument fails nonetheless. As stated by this Court in Adu, 82 F.3d at 124, 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. As previously stated, the safety valve provision is for those who “truly cooperate.” True cooperation is not merely No. 06-1049 USA v. Dottery Page 11 answering the questions the government thinks to ask, but assertively volunteering all relevant information about one’s offense or related offenses. Defendant’s behavior here falls well short of that standard. Thus, the district court was correct in denying Defendant the benefits of the safety valve provision.