Circuit split · criminal sentencing
Whether the safety-valve provision's full-disclosure requirement obligates a defendant to proactively volunteer all information he possesses about the offense, or only information he recognizes as useful or is specifically asked about
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Carey120 F3D 509
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · August 18, 1997
“For the reasons given, we decline to follow the First Circuit, which held that “until becoming aware of its value, or being specifically asked, a defendant cannot be said to ‘know’ useful information.” — Declines to follow another circuit
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other side · 1st Cir.Morales52 F.3d 8
“10, 1996) (rejecting “out of hand” an argument based on Morales because of its clear conflict with the plain language of Rule 35); cf.” — United States v. Carey, acknowledging the split
- Declined to follow · 10th Cir.United States v. Evans1996 WL 167484
- Discussed · 7th Cir.United States v. McDowell117 F.3d 974
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.