Miguel Angel Garcia pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit drug trafficking offenses. The district court 1 sentenced Garcia to 188 months imprisonment. On appeal, Garcia contends that the district court erred in finding that he failed to qualify for safety valve relief under the Sentencing Guidelines. Garcia *1093 also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
I.
On May 19, 2010, а one-count superseding indictment was filed charging Garcia and others with participating in a drug conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute various illegal drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. Gаrcia subsequently pled guilty.
At his sentencing hearing, Garcia contended that he should be eligible for safety valve relief under the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5C1.2. In support, Garcia pointed to two separate occasions where he offered information to the government. The first episode occurred shortly before Garcia was indicted. At that time, Garcia met with a Drug Enforcement Agency special agent in Washington and offered to provide information about a drug trafficking organization in exchange for immunity from prosecution. The DEA agеnt was unwilling to work with Garcia based on these terms and Garcia provided no further information. The second event occurred after Garcia’s arrest. After being provided Miranda 2 warnings, Garcia stated that he was involved in the drug trafficking organization solely as a money handler and that he had no involvement with handling drugs.
In response to Garcia’s claim that he should be eligible fоr safety valve relief, the government presented evidence to show that, contrary to Garcia’s testimony that he only handled money for the drug conspiracy, Garcia was a drug suрplier. The district court called a recess in the sentencing hearing in order to allow Garcia one final opportunity to proffer. When the parties returned, the Assistant United States Attorney informed the court that the government had attempted to allow Garcia to proffer, but Garcia had failed to do so successfully. The AUSA then laid out the reasons why he beliеved Garcia was not being completely truthful during the proffer and why safety valve relief should not be available:
While the defendant did provide some additional information, the difficulty became when we started playing telephone calls that the defendant had been previously identified by other co-conspirators as being the source, the voice behind the telephone call.
We listened to one telephone call. The defendant acknowledged that that was his voice that was intercepted. I played a second telеphone call. The defendant indicated he wasn’t sure whether or not it was his voice. Then changed and said that it was his voice and then again backed off and said he wasn’t sure, it might be his voice. That sort of back and forth exchange occurred with two, then, subsequent telephone calls where the defendant would not admit that that, in fact, was him.
I would also tell the Court that the quеstion and answer session with the defendant included a lot of the government trying to pry details out of the defendant that the defendant did not forthrightly provide, but the defendant often answered questions with other questions or made answers like “I suppose so” or “maybe” and that he did not give a full and complete and accurate accounting of the criminal conduct here.
(Sеntencing Tr. at 53-54.) Garcia disputed that the court-ordered proffer session was unsatisfactory and maintained that his post-arrest statement satisfied the safety valve proffer requirement. Finding that Garcia’s proffer was unsatisfactory, the district court denied safety valve relief. After hearing from both parties and con *1094 sidering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court imposеd a sentence of 188 months, which was at the bottom of Garcia’s advisory Guidelines range.
II.
Garcia first argues that the district court violated his right to due process by failing to make an independent determination of whether he qualified for safety valve relief under section 5C1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. “We review the district court’s application of § 5C1.2 de novo and its factuаl findings for clear error.”
United States v. Jackson,
The safety valve provision under section 5C1.2 “applies to first-time nonviolent drug offenders who meet certain requirements.”
Deltoro-Aguilera v. United States,
“Defendants have the burden to show affirmatively that they have satisfied
each
requirement for the safety valve, including whether truthful information and evidence have been given to the government.”
United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,
In his appeal, Garcia argues that this court should alter its jurisprudence to respond to the due process concerns raised by Judge Bright in his dissent to the en bane decision in
United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,
After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we do not agree with Garcia that the district court clearly errеd in its assessment that Garcia failed to adequately proffer. The government put forward evidence at the beginning of the sentencing hearing to show that Garcia’s role in the drug conspiracy was greater than Garcia had ever admitted. After Garcia was given the chance to proffer, the government represented to the court that Garcia did not give a complete and accurate accounting of his role in the crime and gave examples of how Garcia was noncompliant. Defense counsel did not put forward any evidence to counter this assessment by the government, other than to argue that “I think there’s still an argument to be made upon his
Mirandized
statement and what happened.” Furthermore, defense сounsel at several points seemed to concede that Garcia did not fully proffer.
See
Sentencing Tr. at 49 (“He did take some responsibility and some additional responsibility. He could nоt go as far as the government wanted.”). As a result, Garcia failed to meet his burden that he provided complete and truthful information. Although Garcia asks that we alter our jurisprudence bаsed on the dissent in
Alvarado-Rivera,
our panel is not at liberty to do so.
See Drake v. Scott,
III.
Garcia next challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentence is rеviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
United States v. Feemster,
Garcia contends the district court’s sentence was harsher as a result of the government’s pronouncement that Garcia had not аdequately proffered. Yet the district court sentenced Garcia to 188 months imprisonment, which was a bottom-of-the-range sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. A sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal,
see United States v. Robinson,
IV.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Notes
. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
.
Miranda v. Arizona,
. As we have previously explained:
The safety valve requires that: (1) the defendant does not have more than one criminal history рoint; (2) the defendant did not use violence or a credible threat thereof or possess a dangerous weapon in the commission of the crime; (3) the offense did not result in anyonе's death or serious injury; (4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense; and (5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.
Deltoro-Aguilera v. United States,
. It does not appear that Garcia is attempting to distinguish the faсts of this case from
United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,