United States v. Martin Salazar, 61 F.4th 723

Martin Salazar pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute controlled substances within the Los Angeles County Jail; his plea admitted he joined the conspiracy and hid drugs on/in his person. The statutory mandatory minimum was five years.
Guideline calculation: offense level 21, criminal history VI → 77–96 months; with safety-valve relief and a 7-point reduction he would face 37–46 months.
Salazar sought safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)–(5); the government contended he failed subsection (f)(5) because he never truthfully proffered “all information and evidence” he possessed about the offense and related conduct.
At sentencing defense counsel said Salazar’s involvement was brief and Salazar declined to proffer (citing fear of retribution), though counsel had offered a written proffer earlier; the district court concluded a proffer would be futile given the government’s knowledge and nonetheless granted safety-valve relief, sentencing Salazar to 42 months.
The government appealed; the Ninth Circuit held the district court erred because § 3553(f)(5) requires the defendant to provide a truthful proffer (or at least communicate lack of additional information) and there is no futility exception; the plea agreement did not satisfy the proffer requirement. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Gov't Argument	Salazar Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly applied safety-valve relief without a defendant proffering all information under § 3553(f)(5)	Salazar never truthfully provided all information; therefore not eligible	District court may excuse proffer because government already knew the facts; plea agreement and prior statements suffice	Court vacated sentence: defendant must comply with § 3553(f)(5) before safety valve applies
Whether a "futility" exception allows the court to waive the proffer when government already knows the information	No futility exception; statutory text requires defendant to provide information regardless of usefulness	Proffer would be futile because government already had the facts	Held futility is not a basis to bypass § 3553(f)(5) proffer requirement
Whether a plea agreement or prior statements can substitute for a required proffer	Plea and known records insufficient without explicit truthful proffer	Plea agreement and existing government knowledge satisfied requirement	Held plea agreement did not satisfy the statutory proffer obligation; court must find compliance on the record

United States v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1996) (safety-valve requires defendant to provide all information he possesses)
United States v. Thompson, 81 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1996) (defendant must provide all information even if government already knows it)
United States v. Lopez, 998 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2021) (interpreting § 3553(f)(1) criminal-history limitation)
United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2007) (proffers may be oral or written if truthful and complete)
United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court must allow parties a reasonable opportunity to present disputed facts relevant to sentencing)
United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1996) (safety-valve aimed at less culpable offenders who cooperate)
United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136 (7th Cir. 1995) (if defendant lacks information he should communicate that fact to qualify)
United States v. Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (plea admissions do not necessarily obviate requirement to cooperate fully)