United States v. Yuniel Lima-Rivero, 971 F.3d 518

Dec. 11, 2018: Lima‑Rivero participated in a planned methamphetamine transaction; law enforcement had an arrest warrant and were inside the target residence.
Two vehicles arrived; Echarte‑Rivero drove a getaway car at high speed when police approached; Lima‑Rivero was a passenger.
During the high‑speed flight, Lima‑Rivero threw a backpack containing over 3 kilograms of methamphetamine out the passenger window into a residential area; the car later crashed and both fled on foot; they were arrested after hiding in a shed.
Lima‑Rivero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 846).
The PSR recommended a two‑level Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.2 reckless‑endangerment enhancement and concluded Lima‑Rivero did not qualify for the safety‑valve (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5)) because he failed to provide truthful information to the government; the district court adopted the PSR, denied objections, and sentenced him to 180 months.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit: affirmed the § 3C1.2 enhancement; reversed the denial of the safety‑valve reduction; remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lima‑Rivero)	Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court)	Held
Whether § 3C1.2 reckless‑endangerment enhancement applies	Enhancement improper because co‑conspirator, not Lima‑Rivero, drove the car; co‑conspirator liability rules should not automatically apply	Lima‑Rivero aided/abetted flight and personally threw a backpack with >3 kg meth into a residential area, creating substantial risk	Affirmed — enhancement proper based on Lima‑Rivero’s act of throwing a large quantity of meth during flight and joint flight conduct
Whether Lima‑Rivero met the safety‑valve requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) (truthfully provide all information)	He argues the court misapplied the legal standard and that the government’s speculative agent testimony did not show untruthfulness	Government contends he was not forthcoming; district court relied on agent’s testimony and government’s position to deny safety valve	Reversed — district court erred by treating the government’s view as binding and relying on speculative agent testimony; remanded for resentencing

United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: legal questions de novo; factual findings for clear error)
United States v. Stricklin, 290 F.3d 748 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizes methamphetamine as a dangerous drug relevant to endangerment analysis)
United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 1999) (safety‑valve denial cannot rest on mere speculation; government must offer more than conjecture)
United States v. Miranda‑Santiago, 96 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 1996) (same: § 3553(f)(5) cannot be decided on speculation)