When reviewing a district court's findings as to a defendant's safety-valve eligibility, we review the district court's legal interpretation of the statute and Guidelines de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006). The safety-valve provision requires the district court to sentence the defendant without regard to any applicable statutory mandatory-minimum sentence if all of the following five criteria are met:

The defendant must prove eligibility for safety-valve relief by a preponderance of the evidence. See Milkintas, 470 F.3d at 1345; United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006). Of the five safety-valve criteria, the only one at issue on appeal requires the defendant "not later than the time of the sentencing hearing" to provide truthful and complete information "concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement."

"When reviewing a district court's safety-valve decision, we review for clear error a district court's factual determinations . . . [and] de novo the court's legal interpretation of the statutes and sentencing guidelines." United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). "The question of whether the information [that the defendant] supplied to the government . . . was truthful and complete . . . is a factual finding for the district court."

We review the district court's interpretation of the sentencing guidelines and statutes de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 750 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006). First, we are unpersuaded by Mitchem's claim that the district court erred in calculating her criminal history.

"When reviewing a district court's safety-valve decision, we review for clear error a district court's factual determinations and de novo the court's legal interpretation of the statutes and sentencing guidelines." United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation, ellipsis, and alteration omitted). "The burden is on the defendant to show that he has met all of the safety valve factors."

We agree with the district court that United States v. Cherry, 366 F.Supp.2d 372 (E.D.Va.2005), and United States v. Duran, 383 F.Supp.2d 1345 (D.Utah 2005), are distinguishable because they involved guideline ranges below the minimum mandatory sentence. We are not persuaded, as Lett argues, that either United States v. Lopez, 264 F.3d 527 (5th Cir.2001), or United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.2006), shows that an obvious error or mistake occurred when he was originally sentenced. Because Lopez is not binding in this circuit, it would be unlikely to serve as a basis for concluding that any other result would be obvious error and would almost certainly result in vacating the sentence.

"[L]egal interpretation[s] of . . . statutes and sentencing guidelines" are reviewed de novo. United States v.Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 375 F.3d 1300, 1301 (11th Cir. 2004))

A § 2D1.1(b)(1) factual finding that there is a connection between the firearm and the offense, if supported by the record, means that the defendant cannot satisfy § 5C1.2(a)(2). See United States v. Poyato , 454 F.3d 1295, 1300 (2006) (where the district court found "by a preponderance of the evidence that [the defendant] did in fact possess a firearm in connection with the offense," that "finding rendered [the defendant] ineligible for the safety valve"). Assuming without deciding that the district court committed procedural error in not conducting separate analyses under § 2D1.1(b) and § 5C1.2(a)(2), any such error was harmless.

"When reviewing a district court's safety-valve decision, we review for clear error a district court's factual determinations and [review] de novo the court's legal interpretation of the statutes and sentencing guidelines." United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (alterations adopted and quotation omitted). This Court may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record.

In reviewing safety-valve decisions, we review a district court's factual determinations for clear error and interpretations of the statutes and Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court's factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record.