The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1379•Carl E. Brant v. Principal Life and
00-1379United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th CircuitApr 30, 2001
1The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 98-3280
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Michael Byers, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 20, 2001
Filed: April 24, 2001
___________
Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Byers pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Because he had refused to identify any of his
drug suppliers or customers to the government, citing his religious and moral beliefs,
the district court1 denied his request for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5)
and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5), and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment and 5 years
supervised release. Byers challenges the denial on appeal.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
We conclude that Byers did not satisfy the requirements for safety-valve relief,
and that the district court did not clearly err in denying it. See United States v.
Tournier, 171 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); United States v.
Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 1998) (defendant carries burden of demonstrating
that he has truthfully provided to government all information he knows about relevant
crime); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir. 1996) (to receive safety-valve
relief, defendant is obligated to provide information about identities and participation
of others involved in chain of distribution); cf. United States v. McQuay, 7 F.3d 800,
802-03 (8th Cir. 1993) (requiring defendant to incriminate self to “reap the benefit of”
acceptance-of-responsibility reduction does not punish him for exercise of Fifth
Amendment right).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.