United States v. Figueroa-Labrada, 780 F.3d 1294

Figueroa was convicted of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine; initial sentence attributed 746.19g and imposed 120 months; this court reversed and remanded for resentencing (Figueroa I).
On remand the district court attributed 56.7g to Figueroa, producing a 63–78 month Guidelines range and a 5-year statutory minimum under § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii).
Before resentencing (but after the initial sentencing), Figueroa for the first time provided truthful disclosures to the government; the prosecutor filed an advisement and supported a safety‑valve finding under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
The district court denied safety‑valve relief solely because Figueroa had not made disclosures before his initial sentencing hearing; it then imposed a 63‑month sentence.
The Tenth Circuit majority reversed: it held § 3553(f)(5)’s timing language refers to the sentencing hearing at issue (including resentencing) and requires the court on remand to consider disclosures made before the resentencing hearing. The case was remanded for the district court to determine safety‑valve eligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3553(f)(5)’s deadline "not later than the time of the sentencing hearing" allows consideration of disclosures first made to the government after the initial sentencing but before resentencing	Figueroa: the phrase "sentencing hearing" includes the resentencing hearing; disclosures provided to the government before resentencing must be considered	Government/district court: the phrase means the initial sentencing hearing; disclosures made after the original sentencing are untimely	The court held that § 3553(f)(5) must be read to permit consideration of disclosures first provided to the government before the resentencing hearing; district court erred by refusing to consider them and remanded for resentencing and safety‑valve determination

United States v. Figueroa-Labrada, 720 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2013) (prior panel decision remanding for resentencing on quantity attribution)
United States v. Galvon-Manzo, 642 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2011) (timeliness principle: disclosures are generally timely only if before commencement of sentencing; district court discretion over debriefings)
United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375 (10th Cir. 1995) (remand instruction allowing additional disclosures on resentencing if defendant’s initial incomplete disclosure resulted from the district court’s erroneous interpretation)
United States v. Verners, 103 F.3d 108 (10th Cir. 1996) (safety‑valve findings on remand and consideration of proffers)
United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2007) (assumed safety‑valve may be considered at resentencing and focused inquiry on truthfulness and good faith of late proffer)