United States v. Aidoo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4103

Background

Aidoo, a Ghanaian/Dutch citizen, was stopped on arrival in Baltimore after customs intelligence indicated possible heroin trafficking.
He ingested 998.4 grams of heroin and was indicted for importation and possession with intent to distribute heroin.
Aidoo sought safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), but the district court denied it based on implausibility of his proffered travel/explanations.
The PSR initially suggested Aidoo appeared eligible for safety-valve relief, and the government opposed the safety valve in sentencing.
At sentencing, the district court concluded Aidoo failed the fifth safety-valve criterion (truthful disclosure) due to implausible travel details and denied the safety valve, imposing the mandatory minimum of 60 months.
Aidoo appealed, arguing the government must rebut his truthful-disclosure claim and that the district court erred in denying safety-valve relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Aidoo satisfied §3553(f)(5) truthful disclosure.	Aidoo proved truthful and complete disclosure; government must rebut.	Aidoo carried the burden; government had no obligation to rebut absent adequate proof.	No; record insufficient to show truthful disclosure; district court properly denied safety valve.
Whether Miranda-Santiago governs rebuttal obligation by the government.	If plaintiff credibly discloses, government must provide reasons, not simply disbelieve.	Belief in untruthfulness may suffice; the court may independently assess credibility without extrinsic rebuttal.	The government need not introduce rebuttal evidence where defendant bears burden; court may independently assess credibility.
Whether the district court properly considered the plausibility of Aidoo's proffered travel story as it relates to safety-valve eligibility.	Plausibility of travel does not automatically negate eligibility; safety valve is about truthful disclosure of the offense and relevant conduct.	Implausible travel narrative undermines truthfulness and supports denial of safety valve.	Court may assess credibility; implausible proffer supported denial for safety-valve eligibility.
Whether the district court's consideration of untimely Rule 32 PSR objections constitutes plain error warranting relief.	Timeliness controls; any consideration of untimely objections was error.	Even if objections were untimely, the district court had authority to consider government views and Aidoo bore burden to prove eligibility.	No plain error; timely objections were not required to preserve the government's views; independent § 3553(f) determination remained proper.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 669 (4th Cir. 1996) (burden on defendant to prove safety-valve eligibility)
United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 1996) (court must independently determine safety-valve eligibility after government views)
United States v. Marquez, 280 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2002) (court may assess credibility without extrinsic rebuttal evidence)
United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1996) (defendant bears burden to prove truthful and complete disclosure)
United States v. Montes, 381 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2004) (safety-valve requires complete disclosure of information the defendant possesses)
United States v. Gales, 603 F.3d 49 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (courts may consider government challenges to credibility when evaluating safety valve)
United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 1999) (prior unrelated drug activity cannot automatically defeat safety valve absent substantial connection)
United States v. Brownlee, 204 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2000) (lies may be considered but are not automatically disqualifying)
United States v. Cervantes, 519 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2008) (evidence for truthful disclosure may include proffers, stipulations, or testimony)
United States v. Padilla-Colon, 578 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (Miranda-Santiago narrows government rebuttal obligation)