ÿWPC8 xpë`ŸäIW.»‚e™Ý5õ Á?3»Ï$‘êŒ@h$›9ö6`ÅDÃ:•(2:3i‡wWž]/‰ZõÙ ÈÎfV6u°K9ÀaÔ7¶ñ°}†Žõ¤oSÝŸ'RÕ–ê®3‰@:žljYÊÿôÐ4±+9±¤:Á5ó…–Î-”¿ÝfqÃg®jœ/£`é­½¯ï Ûâ[Ô.Ï œßJ¦äzzö-ðßÛ%ä~ëôLE/u¹3™Gíê¦1šby˼DþçGè©U;„ÀºXÝq3ÌÙ_]\ü’*s>˜ý=8ú °AÑè¿êç2ÉBL.%$“ÔGç†^ïcœá!Âm¤¨Xa©åÅ9õÄ- ù•nþ]Ü£ðO6hhÑ7?O|)“Ál#0Á½©cÍ׉ÜÜMzç¥:i†›ôi[4?x+12ƒŠéCØ®cs8¶a®—£ÖÉÏϺIÀ‹è³‰Ÿ-à0?×z“êêHI±ëräƒ²Š¥?òBXk“Fv 0À],†H¬’¥D“dXP ·l ц.÷ ^וÚtµHÀžÓl.Ø$ ™.Å|½±Ë›˜8;mUìÅ=øcNÏ_MÚ¹€½KÃ?œî/x¯¹ÝÂî êd.O…Ì_±È)ø'<(#É0 %ùU8ÿ 0G7U:~ 0å¸U@nTÝN1 ^ 3 w? 4C W f mh N E fƒ a… 0D™ ^Ý UB; b} } ‰… 7 :EEEœ B˜KONICA MINOLTA 7085/IP-602ÈÇ,,,,ÈÇ0X<4šÛ 9Z+‹ Courier New (‚$¡¡Ô€XOXXXÔ<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(•(2ªi$¤¤Ý ƒ‚!ÝÔ€X]TXXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€]T‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@PqÛ4ó ¦‰¡4óy File3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE A(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- Ý ƒªi$ÝÔ€XSœXXXÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€Sœ‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€accepted€the€presentation€of€facts€relatedÐ ° Ðin€the€presentence€report,€and€we€relate€the€facts€as€stated€inÐ †Ö Ðthat€report. -Ý ƒªi$ÝÔ€XSœXXXÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€Sœ‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔGenerally€speaking,€the€provision€is€only€available€toÐ ° Ðdefendants€with€little€criminal€history€who€did€not€have€aÐ †Ö Ðleadership€role€in€the€offense,€and€it€is€only€available€where€theÐ \¬ Ðcrime€committed€did€not€involve€violence€or€firearms€or€otherwiseÐ 2‚ Ðresult€in€serious€injury. 0Ý ƒªi$ÝÔ€XSœXXXÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€Sœ‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFeliz€implicitly€argued€that€he€knew€nothing€of€the€secondÐ ° Ðtransaction.€€The€argument€went€that:€1)€the€government's€theoryÐ †Ö Ðwas€that€Feliz€was€responsible€for€more€than€one€kilogram€ofÐ \¬ Ðheroin;€2)€the€jury€found€that€he€was€responsible€for€less€thanÐ 2‚ Ðthat€amount;€and€3)€the€jury's€disagreement€with€the€government€wasÐ X Ðbest€explained€by€the€jury€discrediting€Abreu's€testimony€thatÐ Þ. ÐFeliz€was€involved€in€the€second€transaction.€€The€court,€however,Ð ´  Ðfound€that€the€second€transaction€did€take€place€and€did€involveÐ Š Ú ÐFeliz.€€Feliz's€points€in€challenge€to€the€finding€are€notÐ ` ° Ðpersuasive:€the€jury's€verdict€may€be€explained€on€multiple,Ð 6 †  Ðperhaps€more€likely,€grounds€as€well,€and€in€any€event€the€jury'sÐ  \  Ðdetermination€that€a€fact€was€not€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ â 2  Ðwould€not€preclude€the€court€finding€the€same€fact€proven€by€aÐ ¸   Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€ ’Ý ƒªi$ÝÔ€XSœXXXÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€Sœ‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€appeal,€Feliz€does€not€sufficiently€rebut€the€government'sÐ ° Ðspecific€allegations€that€he€failed€to€fully€disclose,€either€byÐ †Ö Ðregistering€equally€specific€denials€of€the€accuracy€of€theÐ \¬ Ðgovernment's€assertion€that€such€an€inconsistency€existed€or€byÐ 2‚ Ðspecifically€explaining€it.€€This€further€heightens€our€comfortÐ X Ðwith€the€district€court's€conclusion.€ dÝ ƒ‚!ÝÔ€XSœXXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXÜ3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Letterÿ3Ø'LetterTÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ ‚!Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡X ™XXXSœÔÔ‡°`a°XX ™ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†X ™X°°`a#ÔÐ ° ÐÔ‡„Ð,„XX ™ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†X ™X„„Ð,x#Ôó óÔ#†XSœXXX ™ä#ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓØÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€05„1383Ð K › ÐÌà@¤¤#ìàUNITED€STATES,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ÐÐ&ìàAppellee,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@¤¤#ìàWILLIAM€FELIZ,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@ ìàDefendant,€Appellant.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@$ $ ìà[Hon.€Richard€G.€Stearns,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€òòLipezóó,€Circuit€Judge,Ð Í ÐòòCyróó€and€òòStahlóó,€Senior€Circuit€Judges.Ð £ó  ÐÌÌßA€') °°` dE<$!` AßÐ %!u# ÐÌÓ  Óà  àLawrence€A.€Ô_ÔVogelmanÔ_Ô€for€appellant.Ð  "Z% Ðà  àRachel€E.€Hershfang,€òòAssistant€U.S.€Attorneyóó,€with€whomÐ à"0& ÐMichael€J.€Sullivan,€òòUnited€States€Attorneyóó,€was€on€brief,€forÐ ¶#' Ðappellee.Ð Œ$Ü( ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ '^"+'^" ‹‹ÐÐ SIr'Â", Àýâ@38894„„‰Àýâ@‰‹‹SÐÌJune€27,€2006Ð H(˜#. ÐÐ RHC)n$/" Àýâ@38894 Àýâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(r'Â"0  (ÐÌÙ* ‚!ÙÌÌÌÐ |-Ì(4? ЇÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€SœXXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÔ",USú ú, ú (ú:!ú&ú),Ôà ` àò òSTAHL,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeó óóó.€€William€Feliz€was€convictedÐ ° Ðof€conspiring€to€possess€and€distribute€heroin€and€was€sentenced€toÐ xÈ Ða€prison€term€of€97€months'€duration.€€He€now€challenges€theÐ $t Ðdistrict€court's€decision€not€to€reduce€his€sentence€under€theÐ Ð  Ðsafety„valve€provision€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€18€U.S.C.€ððÐ | Ì Ð3553(f)€(2000),€and€contends€that€the€district€court€misunderstoodÐ ( x  Ðthe€Supreme€Court's€then„recent€decision€in€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð Ô$  ÐòòBookeróó,€543€U.S.€220€(2005).€€We€affirm€the€sentence€imposed€by€theÐ €Ð  Ðdistrict€court€in€all€challenged€respects.€€Ð ,|  Ðà ` àIn€November€2001,€William€Feliz€was€by€all€appearances€aÐ Ø( Ðlaw„abiding€family€man€who€owned€and€ran€a€successful€barbershop€inÐ „Ô ÐNew€York.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€December,€for€reasons€unexplained,€Feliz€took€up€aÐ 0€ Ðrather€surprising€and€ultimately€disastrous€new€career€as€aÐ Ü, Ðmiddleman€in€a€heroin€trafficking€enterprise.€€His€problems€beganÐ ˆØ Ðwhen€he€arranged€an€introduction€between€two€men,€Jorge€Ariel€AbreuÐ 4„ Ðand€Johnny€Ciriaco.€€Ciriaco€was€looking€for€a€heroin€supplier€forÐ à0 Ðhis€drug€distribution€enterprise€in€Massachusetts,€and€Feliz€putÐ ŒÜ  Ðthe€two€in€contact€and€hosted€a€meeting€at€his€barbershop.€€FelizÐ 8!ˆ" Ðagreed€to€act€as€a€sort€of€guarantor€for€Ciriaco,€committing€toÐ ä"4$ ÐAbreu€that€he€would€ensure€that€Abreu€received€payment€for€drugsÐ $à& Ðsold€to€Ciriaco€and€Ciriaco's€partner,€Jose€Miguel€Hiciano€Amaro.€Ð <&Œ!( ÐÐ è'8#* Ðà ` àThe€day€after€the€meeting,€Abreu€delivered€400€grams€ofÐ ° Ðheroin€directly€to€Ciriaco,€and€Feliz€shortly€thereafter€madeÐ \¬ Ðpayment€to€Abreu.€€A€second€shipment,€of€an€amount€somewhereÐ X Ðbetween€500€and€800€grams,€was€delivered€directly€to€Feliz'sÐ ´  Ðbarbershop,€and€Feliz€stored€the€drugs€there€until€they€were€pickedÐ ` ° Ðup€by€Ciriaco.€€A€third€delivery€took€place€elsewhere€in€New€York,Ð  \  Ðwhen€Abreu€ultimately€delivered€200€grams€of€heroin€directly€toÐ ¸  ÐHiciano€and€Ciriaco€(who€had€actually€requested€500).€€The€evidenceÐ d´  Ðat€trial€was€inconsistent€as€to€whether€Feliz€had€any€involvementÐ `  Ðin€this€last€transaction.€€On€multiple€other€occasions,€Feliz€actedÐ ¼  Ðas€a€financial€intermediary,€collecting€funds€from€Hiciano,Ð h¸ ÐCiriaco,€and€others€and€delivering€them€to€Abreu.Ð d Ðà ` àFeliz€was€indicted€on€a€single€heroin€distribution€countÐ À Ðon€January€23,€2003.€€He€was€later€added€as€a€defendant€in€a€SecondÐ l¼ ÐSuperceding€Indictment€in€a€criminal€case€consolidating€the€chargesÐ h Ðagainst€multiple€members€of€the€conspiracy,€and€the€originalÐ Ä Ðsolitary€indictment€was€dropped.€€Multiple€superseding€indictmentsÐ pÀ  Ðfollowed.€€In€October€2004,€Feliz€was€charged€in€a€FifthÐ !l" ÐSuperceding€Indictment€with€one€count€of€conspiring€to€possess€andÐ È"$ Ðdistribute€heroin€in€violation€of€21€U.S.C.€ðððð€846€and€841(a)(1).€Ð t$Ä& ÐHe€went€to€trial€on€November€1,€2004,€and€on€November€8€a€juryÐ  &p!( Ðreturned€a€guilty€verdict.€€The€jury€indicated€on€a€special€verdictÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âform€that€Feliz€was€responsible€for€at€least€700€grams€but€lessÐ x)È$, Ðthan€one€kilogram€of€heroin.€€On€February€2,€2005,€the€districtÐ ° Ðcourt€held€a€sentencing€hearing.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àBecause€Feliz€had€no€prior€convictions,€the€courtÐ X Ðdetermined€that€Feliz's€Criminal€History€Category€was€I.€€On€theÐ ´  Ðbasis€of€the€jury€verdict,€the€court€found€that€Feliz€wasÐ ` ° Ðresponsible€for€between€700€grams€and€one€kilogram€of€heroin,Ð  \  Ðresulting€in€a€base€offense€level€of€30€under€USSG€ðð€2D1.1.€€TheÐ ¸  Ðonly€question€raised€at€the€hearing€as€to€the€applicability€of€anyÐ d´  ÐGuidelines€provision€was€whether€Feliz€merited€a€two„levelÐ `  Ðreduction€under€what€is€known€as€the€safety„valve€provision€of€theÐ ¼  ÐSentencing€Reform€Act,€18€U.S.C.€ðð€3553(f)(1)„(5),€reiterated€inÐ h¸ Ðthe€Guidelines€at€USSG€ðð€5C1.2.€€Without€the€reduction,€theÐ d ÐGuidelines„recommended€sentencing€range€was€97€to€121€months'Ð À Ðimprisonment,€while€with€the€reduction€the€range€would€have€been€78Ð l¼ Ðto€97€months.Ð h Ðà ` àThe€sentencing€safety„valve€provision€offers€a€criminalÐ Ä Ðdefendant€an€incentive€to€fully€disclose€all€information€known€toÐ pÀ  Ðhim€by€offering€a€modestly€reduced€sentence€for€such€disclosure.€Ð !l" ÐIts€first€four€factors€describe€the€kind€of€defendant€and€kinds€ofÐ È"$ Ðcrimes€to€which€the€safety„valve€provision€may€apply,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€FelizÐ t$Ä& Ðsatisfied€all€four€of€these€criteria.€€As€in€many€of€our€safety„Ð  &p!( Ðvalve€cases,€the€battleground€was€the€fifth€factor,€which€is€theÐ ° Ðheart€of€the€provision:€the€fifth€factor€requires€that€"theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€has€truthfully€provided€to€the€Government€all€informationÐ X Ðand€evidence€the€defendant€has€concerning€the€offense€or€offensesÐ ´  Ðthat€were€part€of€the€same€course€of€conduct€or€of€a€common€schemeÐ ` ° Ðor€plan."€€18€U.S.C.€ðð€3553(f)(5);€USSG€ðð€5C1.2.€Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€safety„valve€provision€is€typically€satisfied€by€aÐ ¸  Ðdefendant€who€makes€himself€available€to€the€government€for€aÐ d´  Ðdebriefing,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMontanezóó,€82€F.3d€520,€523€(1st€Cir.Ð `  Ð1996),€and€here€Feliz€did€answer€the€government's€questions€in€anÐ ¼  Ðinitial€session€held€in€anticipation€of€his€entering€a€guilty€plea.€Ð h¸ ÐSubsequent€to€the€meeting,€Feliz€changed€his€mind€and€exercised€hisÐ d Ðright€to€trial.€€While€the€prosecutor€initially€was€convinced€thatÐ À ÐFeliz€had€made€full€disclosure€at€the€debriefing€session,€sheÐ l¼ Ðasserted€to€the€district€court€that€in€preparing€for€trial€andÐ h Ðafter€hearing€the€testimony€given€at€trial,€she€had€reached€theÐ Ä Ðconclusion€that€Feliz€had€withheld€certain€information€andÐ pÀ  Ðmischaracterized€his€role€in€the€offense€in€other€ways.€€TheÐ !l" Ðgovernment€noted,€as€an€example€of€the€inconsistencies,€that€FelizÐ È"$ Ðhad€failed€to€mention€the€second€of€the€three€transactionsÐ t$Ä& Ðdiscussed€above.€€Feliz€contended€to€the€contrary€that€he€had€givenÐ  &p!( Ðsubstantially€all€of€his€information€to€the€government€during€theÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âdebriefing€by€faithfully€answering€all€the€questions€asked€of€him.€Ð x)È$, ÐThe€court€agreed€with€the€government's€position€and€declined€toÐ ° Ðapply€the€safety€valve.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àFeliz€next€urged€the€court€to€consider€factors€not€takenÐ X Ðinto€account€in€the€Guidelines€and€impose€a€lower€sentence€than€theÐ ´  ÐGuidelines€recommended,€but€the€court,€satisfied€with€theÐ ` ° ÐGuidelines€recommendation,€sentenced€Feliz€to€a€97„month€prisonÐ  \  Ðterm.€€Feliz€now€appeals€both€the€decision€not€to€give€him€theÐ ¸  Ðbenefit€of€the€safety„valve€provision€and€the€sentence€as€a€whole.Ð d´  Ðà ` àAs€to€the€safety€valve€application,€there€is€little€toÐ `  ÐFeliz's€argument.€€Feliz€urges,€in€essence,€that€the€court€madeÐ ¼  Ðinsupportably€thin€findings€of€fact€as€to€whether€he€had€made€fullÐ h¸ Ðdisclosure.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€heard€argument€onÐ d Ðwhether€the€safety„valve€criteria€were€met.€€The€governmentÐ À Ðrecommended€to€the€court€that€the€safety€valve€not€be€applied.€Ð l¼ ÐImmediately€afterwards,€the€court€imposed€sentence,€opting€toÐ h Ðfollow€the€government's€recommendation.Ð Ä Ðà ` àThe€only€potentially€troubling€aspect€of€the€case€is€thatÐ pÀ  Ðthe€court€did€not€itself€recite€the€particular€respects€in€whichÐ !l" Ðthe€defendant's€account€at€his€initial€proffer€differed€from€theÐ È"$ Ðtestimony€of€other€witnesses€at€trial.€€To€some€extent,Ð t$Ä& Ðdeficiencies€in€the€court's€fact„finding€implicate€a€proceduralÐ  &p!( Ðconcern,€i.e.,€the€requirement€that€a€district€court€provide€aÐ Ì'#* Ðclear€explanation€of€its€reasoning€sufficient€to€allow€meaningfulÐ x)È$, Ðappellate€review,€which€is€intermingled€here€with€Feliz's€strictÐ $+t&. Ðcontention€that€the€court's€factual€conclusion€that€he€had€notÐ ° Ðfully€disclosed€was€erroneous.€€Ð \¬ Ðà ` àOur€review€of€a€district€court's€decision€whether€or€notÐ X Ðto€apply€the€safety€value€is€ordinarily€for€clear€error,€òòUnitedÐ ´  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòMarquezóó,€280€F.3d€19,€22€(1st€Cir.€2002),€which€meansÐ ` ° Ðthat€"we€ought€not€to€upset€findings€of€fact€or€conclusions€drawnÐ  \  Ðtherefrom€unless,€on€the€whole€of€the€record,€we€form€a€strong,Ð ¸  Ðunyielding€belief€that€a€mistake€has€been€made."€€òòId.óó€at€26Ð d´  Ð(quoting€òòÔ_ÔCumpianoÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòBanco€Santanderóó,€902€F.2d€148,€152€(1st€Cir.Ð `  Ð1990)).€€But€that€standard€is€more€appropriate€in€a€case€where€theÐ ¼  Ðdistrict€court€notes€and€explains€particular€omissions€orÐ h¸ Ðmisrepresentations€in€a€defendant's€proffer.€€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð d ÐòòÔ_ÔMatosÔ_Ôóó,€328€F.3d€34,€40€(1st€Cir.€2003)€("Our€obligation€to€accordÐ À Ðsubstantial€deference€to€the€sentencing€court€is€best€carried€outÐ l¼ Ð-„€particularly€in€close€cases€-„€if€that€court€shares€its€basisÐ h Ðfor€concluding€that€the€disclosure€efforts€fell€short.").€Ð Ä Ðà ` àHere,€however,€while€the€district€court€engaged€in€aÐ pÀ  Ðcolloquy€with€the€parties€on€the€applicability€of€the€safety€valve,Ð !l" Ðit€did€not€state€its€reasons€for€not€applying€it.€€Where€the€basisÐ È"$ Ðfor€the€district€court's€determination€is€unclear,€it€is€incumbentÐ t$Ä& Ðupon€us€to€vacate,€though€not€necessarily€to€reverse,€if€we€haveÐ  &p!( Ðsubstantial€doubts€about€the€supportability€of€the€district€court'sÐ Ì'#* Ðdetermination.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔOlbresÔ_Ôóó,€99€F.3d€28,€30€(1stÐ x)È$, ÐCir.€1996);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔCurranÔ_Ôóó,€967€F.2d€5,€7€(1st€Cir.€1992).€Ð $+t&. ÐWe€can€sometimes€divine€the€necessary€clarity,€and€thus€salvage€aÐ ° Ðpoorly€explained€judgment,€by€"comparing€what€was€argued€by€theÐ \¬ Ðparties€or€contained€in€the€pre„sentence€report€with€what€the€judgeÐ X Ðdid"€and€inferring€the€court's€reasoning.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòJimenezÐ ´  ÐBeltreóó,€440€F.3d€514,€519€(1st€Cir.€2006)€(en€banc).€€Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€government€pointed€to€at€least€one€specific€andÐ  \  Ðsignificant€fact€that€Feliz€failed€to€divulge€to€the€government:€Ð ¸  Ðthere€were€three€major€drug€transactions€at€issue€in€Feliz's€case,Ð d´  Ðand€Feliz€did€not€disclose€his€involvement€in€the€second€of€theseÐ `  Ðin€his€initial€proffer.€€It€also€asserted€that€Feliz€had€attemptedÐ ¼  Ðto€play€down€his€involvement€in€the€charged€conspiracy€and€hadÐ h¸ Ðgenerally€not€been€forthcoming.€€It€was€the€defendant's€burden€"toÐ d Ðpersuade€the€district€court€that€he€Ô_Ôha[dÔ_Ô]€'truthfully€provided'€theÐ À Ðrequired€information€and€evidence€to€the€government,"€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ l¼ Ðv.€òòMontanezóó,€82€F.3d€520,€523€(1st€Cir.€1996)€(quoting€òòUnitedÐ h ÐStatesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔFlanaganÔ_Ôóó,€80€F.3d€143,€145-47€(5th€Cir.€1996)),€and€facedÐ Ä Ðwith€a€damning€example€of€inconsistent€testimony,€Feliz's€burdenÐ pÀ  Ðwas€the€higher€because€he€had€to€overcome€affirmative€argumentsÐ !l" Ðthat€he€had€not€been€truthful.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àHad€Feliz€made€a€credible€effort€to€rebut€theÐ t$Ä& Ðgovernment's€assertions€that€he€was€involved€in€the€secondÐ  &p!( Ðtransaction€and€that€he€omitted€to€disclose€other€materialÐ Ì'#* Ðinformation€during€his€debriefing,€we€would€have€more€difficultyÐ x)È$, Ðdiscerning€the€district€court's€reasoning,€but€as€things€stand€itÐ $+t&. Ðis€clear€that€the€district€court€credited€the€government's€accountÐ ° Є„€and€acted€properly€in€doing€so.€€Feliz€conceded€that€there€wereÐ \¬ Ðvariances€between€his€proffered€information€and€the€testimonyÐ X Ðpresented€at€trial.€€As€to€the€particular€omission€of€a€fullÐ ´  Ðaccount€of€the€second€transaction,€Feliz€argued€that€the€testimony,Ð ` ° Ðgiven€by€one€of€his€co„conspirators,€might€have€been€false.€€As€toÐ  \  Ðthe€other€scattered€omissions€(acknowledged€by€Feliz€although€neverÐ ¸  Ðdescribed€in€detail€by€the€government€or€the€court),€Feliz€arguedÐ d´  Ðthat€he€had€truthfully€responded€to€all€questions€put€to€him€andÐ `  Ðthat€any€resulting€omissions€should€not€be€counted€heavily€againstÐ ¼  Ðhim.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThe€first€point€carries€little€weight:€it€was€for€theÐ d Ðdistrict€judge€to€assess€the€credibility€of€the€varying€accounts,Ð À Ðand€while€the€court€did€not€explicitly€adopt€the€government'sÐ l¼ Ðassertions€as€to€specific€examples€of€inconsistencies,€allÐ h Ðindications€are€that€the€court€was€swayed€by€the€government'sÐ Ä Ðargument.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€to€the€second€point,€a€purpose€of€the€safety„valveÐ pÀ  Ðprovision€is€to€encourage€defendants€to€come€forward€withÐ ° Ðinformation€that€the€government€might€not€already€have.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðemphasis€on€full€disclosure€means€that€the€issue€is€not€whether€aÐ X Ðdefendant€accurately€answered€questions€put€to€him:€the€defendantÐ ´  Ðhas€to€volunteer€information€even€if€the€government€fails€to€askÐ ` ° Ðfor€it.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔMatosÔ_Ôóó,€328€F.3d€at€38.€€Of€course€a€court€must€be€fairÐ  \  Ðand€practical€in€determining€the€scope€of€a€defendant's€burden€toÐ ¸  Ðdisclose€information€about€which€he€is€not€asked,€for€a€defendantÐ d´  Ðmay€in€good€faith€omit€to€disclose€information€he€could€not€imagineÐ `  Ðwas€relevant,€and€there€will€be€cases€where€he€ought€not€to€sufferÐ ¼  Ðfor€such€an€omission.€€Here,€however,€Feliz's€integralÐ h¸ Ðparticipation€in€a€major€drug€transaction€had€to€be€disclosed.€€InÐ d Ðlight€of€the€defendant's€concessions€that€the€information€he€gaveÐ À Ðwas€inconsistent€with€information€given€at€trial€and€the€court'sÐ l¼ Ðevident€acceptance€of€the€government's€account,€and€given€the€factÐ h Ðthat€the€burden€was€on€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€fullÐ Ä Ðdisclosure,€we€do€not€think€the€district€court€erred€in€refusing€toÐ pÀ  Ðâ âapply€the€safety„valve€provision.׃f×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð !l" Ðà ` àWhat€is€left€is€the€contention€that€the€courtÐ ° Ðâ âmisunderstood€òòBookeróó€when€it€imposed€sentence.€€òòBookeróó,€of€course,Ð \¬ Ðrendered€the€Guidelines€advisory,€giving€the€district€courts€aÐ X Ðfreer€hand€to€fashion€appropriate€sentences.€€The€court€here,Ð ´  Ðhowever,€did€not€exercise€its€newfound€freedom,€concluding€that€theÐ ` ° ÐGuidelines„recommended€sentence€was€appropriate.€€Feliz's€argumentÐ  \  Ðcomes€down€to€this:€"By€stating€that€given€the€legislativeÐ ¸  Ðframework€the€guidelines€sentence€was€reasonable,€the€court€wasÐ d´  Ðgiving€dispositive€weight€to€the€guidelines.€€The€court's€sentence,Ð `  Ðtherefore,€was€in€violation€of€the€mandate€of€[òòBookeróó]."€€TheÐ ¼  Ðargument€turns€on€the€fact€that€the€court€stated,€in€a€closingÐ h¸ Ðadmonition€to€Feliz,€"I€am€sorry€it's€come€to€this,€but€the€law,€asÐ d Ð[defense€counsel]€points€out,€when€it€comes€to€drugs€is€hard."€€TheÐ À Ðinference€Feliz€draws€is€that€this€statement€reflects€the€court'sÐ l¼ Ðerroneous€belief€that€it€had€no€choice€but€to€punish€FelizÐ h Ðaccording€to€the€Guidelines.€€Ð Ä Ðà ` àThe€only€claim,€therefore,€is€a€claim€of€legal€error:Ð pÀ  Ðthat€the€court€simply€misunderstood€the€import€of€òòBookeróó.€€But€theÐ !l" Ðcourt€elsewhere€expressly€indicated€its€understanding€that€òòBookeróóÐ È"$ Ð"clearly€struck€the€two€mandatory€provisions€of€the€Guidelines€and,Ð t$Ä& Ðrather,€counsels€that€the€court€use€the€Guidelines€as€a€basis€forÐ  &p!( Ðdeparture€in€its€analysis€of€what€is€or€is€not€reasonable€in€anyÐ Ì'#* Ðgiven€sentencing€context."€€We€do€not€mean€to€endorse€thisÐ x)È$, Ðstatement€as€a€precise€formulation€of€the€meaning€of€òòBookeró󀄄€ourÐ $+t&. Ðdeveloping€case€law€on€the€topic€does€that€job€„„€but€the€statementÐ ° Ðwas€enough€to€satisfy€defense€counsel€at€sentencing,€who€indicatedÐ \¬ Ðimmediately€his€agreement€that€he€and€the€court€were€"on€the€sameÐ X Ðpage."€€Because€defense€counsel€accepted€this€formulation€of€theÐ ´  Ðlaw€and€raised€no€subsequent€objection€to€the€court's€understandingÐ ` ° Ðor€application€of€òòBookeróó€in€the€case,€our€review€is€for€plainÐ  \  Ðerror,€and€we€find€none.€€The€court's€understanding€of€òòBookeróó€wasÐ ¸  Ðsubstantially€correct€and€worked€no€injustice€here€sufficient€toÐ d´  Ðclear€the€hurdle€of€our€plain€error€review.Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€sentence€imposed€by€the€district€court€is€ò òòòaffirmedóóó ó.