United States v. Galvon-Manzo, 642 F.3d 1260

Defendants Guzman-Manzo and Galvon-Manzo pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and faced a ten-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
PSRs calculated advisory guidelines of 70–87 months with potential safety-valve relief under USSG § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
DEA debriefings occurred; both defendants lied or were not fully truthful about their drug activities, prompting government opposition to safety-valve relief.
Guzman-Manzo submitted a late affidavit asserting more information before sentencing; the district court refused to permit further disclosures after the hearing began.
Galvon-Manzo argued for safety-valve relief based on prior debriefings and his affidavit, but the district court rejected the relief due to lack of truthfulness.
Both sentences were 120 months’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal; safety-valve relief denied based on the fifth criterion requiring truthful disclosure by sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether late disclosures/alleged affidavits met the fifth criterion.	Guzman-Manzo/Galvon-Manzo argue information timely; affidavits should count.	Affidavits and late disclosures should be considered to fulfill safety-valve requirements.	Late disclosures not allowed; timing bars additional information after sentencing hearing starts.
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying further testimony or cross-examination at sentencing.	Defendants should be allowed to present evidence to support truthfulness.	Court erred in barring testimony; safety-valve should consider all disclosures.	Court did not abuse discretion; no requirement to permit hearings or live testimony during sentencing.
Whether the district court properly weighed credibility and information provided in debriefings and affidavits.	Affidavits corroborate truthful cooperation; credibility should be reconsidered.	Earlier falsehoods do not categorically preclude later truthful disclosure.	Court did not err; overall record showed lack of credibility and insufficient truthful disclosure.

United States v. Cervantes, 519 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2008) (safety-valve burden and timing clarified)
United States v. Matos, 328 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2003) (timing of safety-valve disclosures before sentencing)
United States v. Brenes, 250 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2001) (timeliness of disclosures prior to sentencing)
United States v. Brownlee, 204 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2000) (timeliness of complete disclosures before sentencing)
United States v. Schreiber, 191 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1999) (timeliness requirement for safety-valve disclosures)
United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 1999) (full cooperation by sentencing start)
United States v. Marin, 144 F.3d 1085 (7th Cir. 1998) (disclosures must be complete and truthful by sentencing start)
United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1996) (policy of safety-valve cooperation)
United States v. Myers, 106 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 1997) (broad scope of fifth criterion)
United States v. Altamirano-Quintero, 511 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 2007) (credibility determinations extricable to safety-valve review)
United States v. Gama-Bastidas, 142 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 1998) (timeliness of pre-sentencing disclosures before hearing)
United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375 (10th Cir. 1995) (remand as exception for erroneous statutory interpretation)