Sentencing; Whether defendant was entitled to a reduced sentence under the “safety-valve” provision; 18 USC § 3553(f); USSG § 5C1.2

The court held that defendant-Reinberg was not entitled to a sentence reduction under the “safety-valve” provision. She pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute meth and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. The district court denied her motion for a sentence reduction under § 3553(f), finding that she failed to fulfill the condition of showing by the preponderance of the evidence that she had “disclosed everything she knew about her crime and the surrounding circumstances.” Reinberg was observed on video taken at her boyfriend’s home selling drugs to an informant. She also agreed to have her boyfriend contact the informant about the sale of a firearm. When Reinberg met with the government to disclose what she knew, her attorney advised her not to answer any questions about the firearm because she had not been charged with a firearm offense. The district court agreed with the government that because she failed to make full disclosure regarding the gun, she was not entitled to application of the safety-valve provision. On appeal, the court noted that the provision is only available to defendants who disclose “‘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.'” The court agreed with the district court that the conversation on the tape indicated that the gun was present at the time of the video where Reinberg commented that the gun was “‘pretty.’” Also, she helped facilitate the future sale of the gun by telling the informant that she would have her boyfriend follow up on the sale. “The bottom line here is simple: no evidence, no safety valve.” Affirmed.