The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on August 21, 2020, that the government is not responsible for determining whether someone provides “truthful information” to qualify for a reduced sentence under the safety valve. U.S. v. Lima-Rivero, 19-10759 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2020).
After pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine, the defendant provided information to the government in an attempt for a lower sentence under the safety valve, which allows a court to go below a mandatory minimum sentence if a defendant meets several criteria.
One of those criteria is that the defendant must provide “all information and evidence [he has] concerning the offense” to the government. In this case, the DEA agent testified that the defendant was “less than forthcoming” and didn’t qualify for the safety valve. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the safety valve, reasoning that “I think it’s up to the government to determine if the defendant has complied” with the safety valve provision.
But the judge was wrong: it’s not up to the government. Under 18 U.S.C. s. 3553(f)(5), it is the court’s responsibility to determine all the criteria for the safety valve. The Fifth Circuit said that the agent’s testimony wasn’t even based on fact but only “mere speculation” and returned the case to the district court to determine for itself whether the safety valve applied.
