Opinion ID: 203966
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proper basis for safety-valve determination

Text: Padilla argues that the sentencing court erred in basing its determination on information other than the safety-valve proffer itself, namely, an earlier interview conducted by the case Probation Officer. That interview, he says, was conducted only for acceptance of responsibility purposes. As such, it was more limited than the safety-valve interview and should not be considered. Once again Padilla fails to adduce any legal authorities in support of his position. In fact, sentencing courts assessing eligibility for the safety valve routinely rely on a variety of record materials in determining whether a defendant has provided truthful and complete information. See Bermúdez, 407 F.3d at 542 (upholding determination based on comparison between safety-valve proffer and testimony at trial of co-defendant); Marquez, 280 F.3d at 24 (noting internal inconsistencies between the proffer and other statements that the [defendant] himself had made); Matos, 328 F.3d at 40 (upholding district court's determination in light of other evidence that can be gleaned from the record). There is -18- no sensible reason to limit the assessment of truthfulness to the safety-valve proffer itself. Inconsistencies between statements made during the proffer and statements made to the authorities on other occasions are not necessarily disqualifying. But the court may legitimately consider such inconsistencies in deciding on the truthfulness of the proffer.