United States v. Maurice Collins, 924 F.3d 436

Maurice Collins pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine and crack; a prior felony made him subject to a 10‑year statutory minimum unless he qualified for the safety‑valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
At arrest agents seized about $40,000 from Collins’s car; at least $15,000 was proceeds from drug sales. Investigators had controlled buys showing Collins sold ounce quantities; a separate source reported Collins intended to buy a kilogram.
Collins gave a proffer interview before sentencing, admitting drug dealings and naming sources, and stating he intended to buy a car at the Clinton Auto Auction — denying any plan to buy a kilogram of cocaine.
At initial sentencing the district court applied a leadership enhancement; this court vacated and remanded. On remand the Government argued Collins’s proffer was untruthful, focusing on his explanation for the $40,000.
At the resentencing hearing the district court heard testimony (including from a DEA agent) and reviewed the proffer video, found Collins’s car‑purchase explanation not credible, concluded he failed to prove he had truthfully provided all information, and resentenced him to 120 months.
Collins appealed again arguing the court misallocated burdens of proof and that he had been truthful; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Collins bore the burden and the district court’s credibility determination was not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears burden to prove safety‑valve eligibility?	Collins: burden should shift to government after his proffer	Government: defendant bears burden throughout	Held: Defendant bears the ultimate burden to prove eligibility (Seventh Circuit rule)
What is required for §3553(f)(5) "truthfully provided" prong?	Collins: his proffer and admissions were sufficient	Government: proffer was incomplete/false re: $40,000 destination	Held: Court may deny safety‑valve if defendant’s proffer is implausible or not credible; silence by Govt. can still suffice if proffer fails
Is Government required to present fact‑based rebuttal after a credible proffer?	Collins: yes — government must produce evidence, not mere disbelief	Government: no formal obligation; may point out inconsistencies	Held: If defendant makes a credible, fact‑based showing, the Government must produce fact‑based rebuttal to prevail; but ultimate evaluation rests with district court credibility finding
Was district court’s denial of safety‑valve to Collins clear error?	Collins: his statements were truthful and sufficient	Government: facts (timing, direction, auction schedule, cash ≈ kilo price) supported disbelief	Held: Not clearly erroneous — district court reasonably found Collins’s car‑plan implausible and denied safety‑valve relief

United States v. Collins, 877 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2017) (vacating original sentence for erroneous application of role enhancement)
United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1996) (defendant bears burden to prove safety‑valve eligibility)
United States v. Montes, 381 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2004) (review standard and burden principles for safety‑valve)
United States v. Miranda‑Santiago, 96 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 1996) (discussing limits on denying safety‑valve based on mere governmental disbelief)
United States v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that government must rebut a defendant’s significant proffer with fact‑based evidence)
United States v. Marquez, 280 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2002) (court may reject proffer on credibility grounds without independent rebuttal evidence)