This includes "complete information regarding the immediate chain of distribution." United States v. Maduka , 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997). These "requirements reflect the fact that the safety valve ‘was intended to benefit only those defendants who truly cooperate.’ "

Id. (quoting § 5C1.2(5)). See also United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997). A defendant's statement that he has given the government "all they asked," even if true, does not satisfy his burden of proof under the provision.

This includes “complete information regarding the immediate chain of distribution.” United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997).

This includes “complete information regarding the immediate chain of distribution.” United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997).

18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(5) (emphasis added). Thus, defendant has not met his burden to show that he was eligible for safety valve relief.See, e.g., United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997) ("Every court which has considered the issue has held that § 5C1.2 requires a defendant to provide complete information regarding the immediate chain of [drug] distribution."). Because counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument, defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim must concomitantly fail.

During his proffer, Defendant offered information on his role in the conspiracy, his immediate chain of distribution including the street name of his cocaine dealer, indentified the person who taught him how to manufacture crack cocaine, the names of some of his largest crack purchasers as well as his relevant knowledge of co-conspirators he recognized from the government produced document ( Appendix II) or street names, and his knowledge of other drug dealers in the neighborhood. SeeAppendix IV;see also United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997) ("Every court which has considered the issue has held that § 5C1.2 requires a defendant to provide complete information regarding the immediate chain of distribution"); United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144, 148 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 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. 1996); United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375, 379 (10th Cir. 1995); Rodriguez, 69 F.3d at 143; United States v. Wrenn, 66 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1995).

If a defendant commits a drug offense that "depends upon the active participation of other people," he must disclose information about those individuals' participation. United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997). This includes "complete information regarding the immediate chain of distribution." Id.

We do not address White's argument that he is entitled to specific performance beyond noting that, if the Government were compelled to file a substantial-assistance motion, the district court would not be able to depart below the 240-month statutory minimum because White did not provide substantial assistance. See United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894-95 (6th Cir. 1997) (Section 5K1.1 "requires a defendant to provide substantial assistance in fact"). D.

In meeting this burden, "[t]he defendant is required to provide complete information regarding not only the offense of conviction, but also any relevant conduct, including disclosure of information regarding the participation of other people in the offense." Salgado, 250 F.3d at 459 (citing United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894 (6th Cir. 1997)). As this Court has noted, Congress enacted the "safety valve" provision to "more equitably mete out justice to cooperating individuals playing minor roles in such conspiracies."

To qualify for a safety valve reduction, a defendant must among other things truthfully provide all information he possesses about the offense of conviction. See USSG § 5C 1.2(a)(5); see also United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894-95 (6th Cir. 1997). The scope of the disclosure demanded by this subsection is expansive.