Court Opinion

ID: 9488873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:57:53.772145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:09.267622
License: Public Domain

K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority has, in my view, construed the word “provide” to mean something much more specific than its commonly understood usage. Because the majority’s unduly restrictive approach frustrates the intent of Congress by imposing a sixth, unauthorized prerequisite to the operation of the “safety valve” provision, I must dissent.
By enacting § 3553(f), Congress plainly intended to except certain less-culpable offenders from the relatively harsh mandatory minimum sentences imposed on those who possess or traffic in substantial quantities of controlled substances, or attempt or conspire to do so.1 The statute compels the district court to impose a lesser Guidelines sentence if (1) the defendant has no more than one criminal history point; (2) the defendant did not employ violence, threats of violence, or possess a firearm in connection with the offense; (3) no one was killed or seriously hurt as a result of the offense; (4) the defendant neither played an aggravating role (organizer, leader, etc.) in the offense nor engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise; and (5) the defendant “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.” See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(f) (West 1995 Supp.).2 As to the fifth requirement, the defendant is not denied the benefit of the statute merely because he possesses no relevant or useful information, or because any or all of the material that he discloses is already known to the government. Id.
Nowhere in § 3553(f) is it suggested that a defendant must, with respect to the fifth requirement, initiate contact with the government in order to avail himself of the safety valve.3 Indeed, • several courts have made findings of fact regarding compliance with § 3553(f)(5) where the contact alleged to have provided all or part of the context for the defendant’s revelation has been initiated by the government or by the court. See United States v. DeJesus-Gaul, 73 F.3d 395, 396 (D.C.Cir.1996) (testimony at sentencing hearing); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 143 (7th Cir.1995) (verbal admission of guilt, apparently during Rule 11 colloquy); United States v. Blackwell, 897 F.Supp. 586, 589 (D.D.C.1995) (statements to probation officer); United States v. Buffington, 879 F.Supp. 1220, 1221 (N.D.Ga.1995) (same);4 United States v. Hart, 876 F.Supp. 4, 5 (D.D.C.1995) (statements at plea hearing).
Instead, all that is required of the defendant is that he “provide” the government with information and evidence relating to the offense or offenses of which he stands convicted. As it is used in § 3553(f)(5), the word “provide” means nothing more than “tell.” The majority is correct that the statute contemplates an “affirmative act” of cooperation. Ante at 185. However, the affirmative act required is merely that the defendant open his mouth. A defendant may satisfy § 3553(f)(5) by telling the government what *187he knows at any time both parties are present and receptive to communication.5
It bears repeating that the statute merely requires the defendant to provide all the information and evidence that he has. That the material is stale or unhelpful to the authorities is of no consequence. Indeed, the record in Ivester’s case indicates that he was the last of the conspiracy’s five members to be indicted, and the government admits that it never sought to debrief him. A fair inference thus arises that Ivester had no useful information to reveal. Moreover, the question of whether Ivester would qualify for the safety valve was not broached until the sentencing hearing itself (barely one month following the statute’s effective date), and then only by someone who appears to have been representing the probation office at the hearing. Under the circumstances, it seems only fair that we remand this case so that Ivester may be given the opportunity to fully comply with the letter of § 3553(f)(5).
I respectfully dissent.

. See United States v. Buffington, 879 F.Supp. 1220, 1223 (N.D.Ga.1995) ("Congress clearly intended to relax the imposition of mandatoiy minimum sentences in this limited context.”) (footnote omitted); Shendur v. United States, 874 F.Supp. 85, 86 (S.D.N.Y.1995) ("[Section] 3553(f) reflects a congressional decision that mandatoiy minimum sentences no longer be applied mechanically.”).

. See also United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5C1.2 (Nov.1995) (incorporating § 3553(f) verbatim). -

. The district court nevertheless appears to have imposed such a requirement, stating that "there was not full compliance [with § 3553(f) ], for the reason that I think it was incumbent upon [Ivester] to initiate the full confession of activities to the Government at an early time, and I cannot find that he has done that.”

. Contra United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 196 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that the defendant's statements to the probation officer were insufficient to satisfy the safety valve’s fifth requirement: "|T]he probation officer is, for purposes of § 5C1.2, not the Government.”).

. Cf. USSG § 3E1.1, decreasing the defendant’s offense level by two if he “clearly demonstrates” acceptance of responsibility for the offense. Arguably, the language of that Guideline contemplates even more of an "affirmative” act than does § 3553(f)(5). Nevertheless, the two-point decrease under § 3E1.1 is, to my knowledge, never contingent upon the defendant’s spontaneous request for leniency. Instead, the probation officer routinely interviews the defendant and otherwise examines the record for evidence of the defendant's contrition. The probation officer then makes a recommendation to the sentencing court. There is no reason that a similar procedure cannot be followed to determine whether § 3553(f) applies in a particular case.
I would also point out that, contrary to the majority’s construction, the word “provide” does not ordinarily connote assertive behavior on the part of the actor. After all, a supermarket “provides” the public with grocery items, but it is the rare store indeed that makes home deliveries, and rarer still unsolicited ones.
Finally, I note that United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144 (7th Cir.1996), does not dictate a different result in Ivester’s case. The court of appeals in Arrington held that a defendant's stipulation to facts in a plea agreement was insufficient to satisfy § 3553(f)(5). Although the Seventh Circuit observed that the defendant "did not initiate any contact with government officials offering to provide details of his involvement in drug dealing,” it also specifically stated that the defendant had-failed to respond to a letter from the government proffering terms for further debriefing. Id. at 148. In addition, there was ample evidence that the defendant possessed information unknown to the government. Id.