green
Positive treatment
43.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 ·
…i have found that you're not eligible for the safety valve because i found that the proffer was not substantially truthful based upon all the record that i have in front of me and the circumstantial inferences.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 ·
…including the identities and participation of others.
at p. 85
✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2005 ·
…provide all information and evidence he had
≈ altered
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Adrian Rodriguez
See United States v. Sanchez, 475 F.3d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Refusing to answer questions or respond to inquiries about relevant conduct is inconsistent with providing a complete and truthful account of that conduct.”); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir. 1996) (to receive safety valve relief, defendant is obligated to provide information about identities and participation of others involved in chain of distribution).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Roger Dengler
He has not shown that he “disclose[d] all the information he possessed about his involvement in the crime,” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996), or that he attempted to initiate contact with the government to discuss the crime.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Phi An Tran
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) (defendant must truthfully provide to government all information and evidence he has concerning offense or offenses that were part of same course of conduct); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir.2006) (Booker does not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences); United States v. Bolanos, 409 F.3d 1045, 1047 (8th Cir.2005) (clear error review of district court’s safety-valve findings); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003) (only authority for court to depart below statutory minimum sentence is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (e) and (f), which …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alvarado
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Under the “safety valve” exception to statutory minimum sentences, a drug defendant may be given a more lenient sentence within the otherwise applicable guidelines range if, among other things, the defendant “provide[s] to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the - same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f)(5)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sergio Jesus Guerra-Cabrera, United States of America v. Nazario Espinoza-Cabrera
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. S. Guerra-Cabrera
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gustavo Ramirez Sanchez, United States of America v. Magdaleno Urzua, United States of America v. Cecilio Gomez Ramirez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gustavo R. Sanchez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. M. Hernandez-Parra
(2×)
To receive safety-valve relief, Parra had “to show, through affirmative conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Abel Sanchez-Rocha
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To receive the safety-valve reduction, Rocha had “to show, through affirmative conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Soto
A defendant must prove “through affirmative conduct, that he [or she] gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing.” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Soto
A defendant must prove “through affirmative conduct, that he [or she] gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing.” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. MARTHA ALVARADO-RIVERA, ALSO KNOWN AS ROSA ONTIVEROS ARANDA, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. GILBERTO MOYA-VEGA, ALSO KNOWN AS JORGE SALINAS, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. M. Alvarado-Rivera
(2×)
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. J. Rojas-Coria
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joaquin Rojas-Coria, Also Known as Kinieno
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. MARTHA ALVARADO-RIVERA, ALSO KNOWN AS ROSA ONTIVEROS ARANDA, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. GILBERTO MOYA-VEGA, ALSO KNOWN AS JORGE SALINAS, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
E.g., id. at 864 (defendant made no effort); United States v. Velasquez, 141 F.3d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir.1998)(defendant made no effort until the day of sentencing, when he produced an affidavit the trial court believed to be inconsistent with the evidence produced at trial); Romo, 81 F.3d at 86 (defendant failed to respond to government requests for specific information). 32 The appellants in the present cases have met their burden of affirmatively demonstrating that they have told the government what they know of the criminal enterprise at issue.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. M. Alvarado-Rivera
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
E.g., id. at 864 (defendant made no effort); United States v. Velasquez, 141 F.3d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir,1998)(defendant made no effort until the day of sentencing, when he produced an affidavit the trial court believed to be inconsistent with the evidence produced at trial); Romo, 81 F.3d at 86 (defendant failed to respond to government requests for specific information).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mario Morreno, United States of America v. Francisco Beltran-Hernandez, Also Known as El Gordo
United States v. Velasquez, 141 F.3d 1280, 1282 (8th Cir.1998) (citing U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5)); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cesar Alarcon-Garcia, United States of America v. Daniel Bueno-Gardea, Also Known as Abel Hidalgo-Escarcega
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cesar Alarcon-Garcia
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996). -4- The district court's decision was based on Bueno-Gardea's proffer interview with the government as summarized in the prosecutor's letter to the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Malone
Malone bears the burden of showing that he meets the requirements of § 5C1.2, see United States v. Rios, 171 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir.1999), and we review for clear error the court’s determination that Malone did not carry this burden, see United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Byers
See United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review); United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.1998) (defendant carries burden of demonstrating that he has truthfully provided to government all information he knows about relevant crime); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996) (to receive safety-valve relief, defendant is obligated to provide information about identities and participation of others involved in chain of distribution); cf. United States v. McQuay, 7 F.3d 800, 802-03 (8th Cir.1993) (requiring defendant to incriminate self t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. G. Chavez-Flores
See United States v. Velasquez, 141 F.3d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir.) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where there was extrinsic support for government’s opinion that defendant had not been fully truthful), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 897 (1998); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where, although defendant provided limited information about his crime to government, presentence report indicated that he had not been fully truthful). -2- Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alejandro Castaneda
The government’s position was supported by the unobjected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR), see United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where, although defendant provided limited information about his crime to government, PSR indicated that he had not been fully truthful), and Castaneda did not introduce any evidence in support of his position, cf. United States v. Rios, 171 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir. 1999) (no plain error for district court to deny safety-valve relief when government contended at sentencing that defendant had not b…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alejandro Cisnero Castaneda, Also Known as Gerardo Onofre-Martinez
The government’s position was supported by the unobjected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR), see United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where, although defendant provided limited information about his crime to government, PSR indicated that he had not been fully truthful), and Castaneda did not introduce any evidence in support of his position, cf. United States v. Rios, 171 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir.1999) (no plain error for district court to deny safety-valve relief when government contended at sentencing that defendant had not bee…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alvarez
See United States v. Velasquez, 141 F.3d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 897 (1998); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-96 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paula D. Hudson
To be eligible, Hudson had to "disclose all the information [s]he possessed about [her] involvement in the crime and [her] chain of distribution, including the identities and participation of others." United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gary O'Dell
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guillermo Morones
To qualify, he must truthfully disclose all information concerning the crime, “including the identities and participation of others.” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guillermo Perales Morones
To qualify, he must truthfully disclose all information concerning the crime, “including the identities and participation of others.” United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carlos Penuelas
Furthermore, the burden was on Penuelas-Santos to show that he had satisfied the statute’s elements, and we do not believe the district court clearly erred in finding that Penuelas-Santos failed to truthfully provide all information he had “concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f)(5); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5) (1998); United States v. Weekly, 118 F.3d 576 , 581 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), modified on other grounds, 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 61…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clemmie Genero Cason
See id. § 5C1.2(5); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nelson De Jesus Jaramillo-Martinez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f)(5) (1994) (court shall impose sentence pursuant to guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum sentence if court finds at sentencing, among other things, that "the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense"); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5) (1997) (same); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jaramillo-Martinez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f)(5) (1994) (court shall impose sentence pursuant to guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum sentence if court finds at sentencing, among other things, that “the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense”); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5) (1997) (same); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Darrell Fluker
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To satisfy § 5C1.2(5), Fluker was required "to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement in the crime and his chain of distribution, including the identities and participation of others." See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Darrell Fluker
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To satisfy § 5C1.2(5), Fluker was required "to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement in the crime and his chain of distribution, including the identities and participation of others." See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gama-Bastidas
See United States v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 882, 884 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied,_U.S__, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1104 , 140 L.Ed.2d 158 (1998); United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095, 1100 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 361 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cruz
See, e.g., United States v. Miranda-Santiago, 96 F.3d 517, 527 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095, 1100 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929-30 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 742 , 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997); United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 121-25 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996); Ivester, 75 F.3d at 183-84 ; United *1557 States v. DeJesus-Gaul 73 F.3d 395, 397 (D.C.Cir.1996); United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193 , 195 n. 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 542 , 133 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Emmanuell Obi Maduka
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144, 148 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2537 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1996); United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Thompson, 81 F.3d 877, 879-80 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 214 , 136 L.Ed.2d 148 (1996); United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375, 379 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 143 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Wrenn, 66 F.3d 1, 3 (1st C…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stone
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 144 (7th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricky Nelson Stone, United States of America v. Timothy Wayne Dodson
United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 144 (7th Cir.1995). 5 In order for a defendant to be entitled to relief under § 3553(f) he must satisfy five requirements.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Rasavanh
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Marileen Edgar
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alfaro-Ramirez
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Romelle Monte Surratt, United States of America v. Gregory Surratt, Sr.
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Debra Kay Tournier, Now Known as Debra Kay Laucamp
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Debra Tournier
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Romelle Surratt
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85 (8th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Norfleet
See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 144 (7th Cir. 1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Eliseo Rodrigo ROMO, Appellant
v.
Eliseo Rodrigo ROMO, Appellant
95-3937.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 9, 1996.
Virginia G. Villa Federal Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued, for appellant., Mark D. Larsen, argued, for appellee.
Fagg, Bright, Wollman.
Cited by 67 opinions | Published
FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Under the “safety valve” exception to statutory minimum sentences, , a drug defendant may be given a more lenient sentence within the otherwise applicable guidelines range if, among other things, the defendant “provide[s] to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) (1994); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5) (1995). After Elíseo Rodrigo Romo pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, the district court found Romo failed to satisfy § 3553(f)(5) and imposed the statutory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment. Romo appeals his sentence, asserting he satisfied § 3553(f)(5) because he gave the Government the names of persons involved in the offense and explained the drug distribution system and his role in it. We affirm.
To satisfy § 3553(f)(5), Romo was required to disclose all the information he possessed about his involvement in the crime and his chain of distribution, including the identities and participation of others. United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144, 148 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375, 377-78 (10th Cir.1995). Romo had the burden to show, through affirmative conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evi[*86] dence about the relevant crimes before sentencing. Ivester, 75 F.3d at 184-85; Arrington, 78 F.3d at 148; see also United States v. Dinges, 917 F.2d 1133, 1135 (8th Cir.1990). We review the district court’s finding that Romo did not satisfy § 3553(f)(5) for clear error. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d at 378 n. 3; United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 144 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir.1995).
The district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. The district court stated Romo had “placed his allegiance with gang activity rather than providing assistance to the government,” and had not offered specific enough information about his role or the role or identity of others involved in his drug activity. Although Romo gave the Government some limited information about his crime, the presentence report indicated Romo did not tell the Government the whole story about his role in the distribution chain and his gang’s involvement. See Edwards, 65 F.3d at 433 (considering information in presentence report to conclude defendant failed to satisfy § 3553(f)(5)). Romo failed to respond to the Government’s initial request for a written chronological summary of his drug trafficking activities. See Arrington, 73 F.3d at 148. Similarly, Romo failed to respond to the Government’s presentence letter expressing concern about Romo’s failure to give accurate and specific information about his criminal drug activities and asking Romo to provide more information before the sentencing hearing.
We affirm Romo’s sentence.