Opinion ID: 755492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mullings

Text: 13 The government contends that the district court erred in concluding that Mullings qualified for the so-called safety valve provision somewhat recently added to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In this regard, the United States claims that Mullings did not provide a complete and truthful statement concerning the offenses and that attempts to question him after his arrest were thwarted. 14 Section 5C1.2 provides that the court will impose the applicable guidelines sentence, without regard to any statutory minimum, if 15 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. 16 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (1998). 17 Although the defendant must show that he has provided complete and truthful information, see United States v. Weekly, 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir.1997), nothing in the guideline or statute specifies the form or place or manner of disclosure, see United States v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir.1996). At the Genesis Hospital, on the evening of January 7, 1997, Mullings provided information about the various crimes including the identification of Dukes as a participant, the location of Mullings's residence, and many other details. 18 After receiving evidence at the sentencing hearing concerning this information exchange, the trial court found that Mullings had truthfully provided all information and evidence he had concerning the offenses. In our view, this finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996). Thus, the government's challenge is also without merit.