Opinion ID: 201233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance

Text: 15 On the battleground of the fifth element of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), 4 United States v. Matos, 328 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir.2003), Morgan contends the district court failed to make its own independent determination of whether he met the only contested element of the safety valve provision, that he provide all information and evidence of the offense. That void in the court's determination cannot be filled with the government's generally subjective belief of his lack of candor, Morgan asserts. 16 We disagree. Although on its face the court's summary statement denying safety valve relief appears to provide scant satisfaction of the specific factual findings of which our precedent speaks, 5 Matos, 328 F.3d at 40, the full record of the sentencing hearing surely amplifies the conclusion. During several interchanges, the court commented on Morgan's lack of candor in downplaying his role in the conspiracy and in offering all of the information the government sought. Asking its own questions and listening to the witnesses' testimony as well as counsels' arguments involving credibility, the court then made the  independent determination U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 requires. United States v. White, 119 F.3d 70, 73 (1st Cir.1997). 17 We review de novo interpretations of the safety valve provision under § 3553(f) and the guideline, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, while [o]n the other hand, we review for clear error the factual findings relating to whether a defendant has qualified for the `safety valve' provisions. Id. at 73 n. 6. Under this standard, we cannot say the court erred in denying relief. 18 Indeed, the court's dissatisfaction with Morgan's candor surfaced again when it rejected Morgan's argument under § 5K1.1, stating that Morgan's truthfulness has been an issue throughout this hearing. Concluding no plea agreement was ever struck, the court properly gave effect to the government's decision not to request a downward departure for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Although Morgan here insists the government's plea agreement became effective upon the court's concluding he did not participate in the total amount of marijuana involved in the conspiracy, his argument is fatuous. Assuming we have jurisdiction to entertain the question — a matter on which we take no view — the district court did not err in refusing to depart under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. 19