NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0538n.06
No. 25-3067
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED Nov 21, 2025 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO WILLIAM HARTSON, ) ) OPINION Defendant-Appellant. ) )
Before: GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.
GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.
Defendant William Hartson pleaded guilty to two drug-related offenses. Before
sentencing, Hartson argued that he qualified for a safety-valve reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f), which allows a district court to sentence a defendant without regard to any mandatory
minimums set by statute. The district court found that Hartson had failed to satisfy one of
§ 3553(f)’s criteria, denied his request for safety-valve relief, and imposed the mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months. We affirm.
I.
Hartson booked a flight to California for himself and Dalvin Rogers, where they stayed for
two days before flying back to Ohio. On the return flight, they checked their luggage and, just
before their bags were placed on the carousel, a police canine alerted to the presence of narcotics.
When Hartson and Rogers claimed their luggage, police stopped them. Hartson and Rogers No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
consented to a search, and police found 3.79 kilograms of cocaine in Hartson’s bag and 3.84
kilograms in Rogers’s bag.
The government charged Hartson with one count of conspiring to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, and one count of possession with intent
to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Hartson pleaded guilty to both counts.
In his interview with the probation office, Hartson stated: “I take full responsibility for the
role that I played in this case. I knew there were drugs coming back. I apologize to the Courts
and to my family for the mistake that I made.” Based on this statement and the fact that Hartson
had timely notified authorities of his intention to enter a guilty plea, the presentence report
recommended an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction from Hartson’s base offense level. This
yielded a total offense level of 27, which, together with his criminal history category of II, would
generally result in a Guidelines range of 78 to 97 months. But because Hartson pleaded guilty to
charges that require mandatory minimums, the presentence report stated that his Guidelines term
of imprisonment was 120 months.
Hartson objected to the presentence report, arguing that he was entitled to a safety-valve
reduction, which allows a district court to sentence a defendant without regard to mandatory
minimums if, among other things, “the defendant has truthfully provided 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” no later than “the time of the
sentencing hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). In support, Hartson stated that, although he “did not
make a statement to the United States [Attorney’s Office], he did plead guilty to the indictment . . .
[and therefore] has assented to all of the knowledge and information that the [U.S.] Attorney has,
-2- No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
making a formal statement unnecessary.” The probation officer disagreed, responding that Hartson
“refused to meet with the Government” and therefore did not qualify for safety-valve relief.
At the sentencing hearing, Hartson renewed his objection, arguing that “pleading to the
indictment” and “his acceptance of responsibility, that ‘I went to LA and I knew I brought back
drugs’” were enough to qualify for safety-valve relief. He acknowledged, however, that he had
not “provide[d] a statement . . . to the government about his complete role in the offense” and
therefore had not met “the exact letter of the law” under § 3553(f)(5).
The district court asked Hartson if he wanted to continue the hearing so he could satisfy
§ 3553(f)(5)’s disclosure requirement, as the law required. But Hartson’s counsel explained that
Hartson “does not want to do that” because he feared for “his safety and how he will be treated by
the other prisoners” if he met with the government. Hartson himself then confirmed that he was
“not interested in speaking with the government, as would be required under [§ 3553(f)(5)].”
The government argued that § 3553(f)(5) required Hartson to meet with government
officials and provide a statement regarding “what he did” and “how the crime occurred, which
may necessarily include discussing other people.” Because Hartson had been provided several
opportunities to meet with government officials, but refused every time, the government contended
that he did not qualify for safety-valve relief.
The district court agreed with the government, explaining that to receive a safety-valve
reduction, “it’s not you admitting, it’s not you pleading, it’s not you cooperating, it’s that you
truthfully provide all that you know” to the government. Because Hartson had not done so, the
district court found that he was not eligible for a safety-valve reduction and overruled his objection.
Later, the district court gave Hartson one last opportunity to satisfy § 3553(f)(5)’s
disclosure requirement, but Hartson remained steadfast in his refusal to meet with or provide
-3- No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
information to the government. The district court then imposed the mandatory minimum sentence
of 120 months.
Hartson timely appealed.
II.
Hartson appeals a single issue—whether the district court erred in finding that he did not
qualify for a safety-valve reduction. A district court’s refusal to apply a safety-valve reduction is
a factual finding we review for clear error. United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir. 1996).
To be eligible for a safety-valve reduction, a defendant must satisfy the five criteria listed
in § 3553(f). Id. at 121; see also U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) (incorporating these criteria verbatim). A
defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a
safety-valve reduction. United States v. Haynes, 468 F.3d 422, 427 (6th Cir. 2006).
Here, the only question is whether Hartson carried his burden to show that he satisfied the
fifth criterion, to “truthfully provide[] 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” no “later than the time of the sentencing hearing.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f)(5). He did not.
Hartson contends that pleading guilty and stating, “I take full responsibility for the role that
I played in this case” and “I knew there were drugs coming back,” were enough to satisfy the fifth
criterion. In his view, doing so admitted “all facts in the case, making a separate ‘proffer’
redundant and unnecessary.”
Section 3553(f)(5), however, not only “requires a defendant to admit the conduct charged”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0538n.06
No. 25-3067
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED Nov 21, 2025 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO WILLIAM HARTSON, ) ) OPINION Defendant-Appellant. ) )
Before: GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.
GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.
Defendant William Hartson pleaded guilty to two drug-related offenses. Before
sentencing, Hartson argued that he qualified for a safety-valve reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f), which allows a district court to sentence a defendant without regard to any mandatory
minimums set by statute. The district court found that Hartson had failed to satisfy one of
§ 3553(f)’s criteria, denied his request for safety-valve relief, and imposed the mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months. We affirm.
I.
Hartson booked a flight to California for himself and Dalvin Rogers, where they stayed for
two days before flying back to Ohio. On the return flight, they checked their luggage and, just
before their bags were placed on the carousel, a police canine alerted to the presence of narcotics.
When Hartson and Rogers claimed their luggage, police stopped them. Hartson and Rogers No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
consented to a search, and police found 3.79 kilograms of cocaine in Hartson’s bag and 3.84
kilograms in Rogers’s bag.
The government charged Hartson with one count of conspiring to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, and one count of possession with intent
to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Hartson pleaded guilty to both counts.
In his interview with the probation office, Hartson stated: “I take full responsibility for the
role that I played in this case. I knew there were drugs coming back. I apologize to the Courts
and to my family for the mistake that I made.” Based on this statement and the fact that Hartson
had timely notified authorities of his intention to enter a guilty plea, the presentence report
recommended an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction from Hartson’s base offense level. This
yielded a total offense level of 27, which, together with his criminal history category of II, would
generally result in a Guidelines range of 78 to 97 months. But because Hartson pleaded guilty to
charges that require mandatory minimums, the presentence report stated that his Guidelines term
of imprisonment was 120 months.
Hartson objected to the presentence report, arguing that he was entitled to a safety-valve
reduction, which allows a district court to sentence a defendant without regard to mandatory
minimums if, among other things, “the defendant has truthfully provided 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” no later than “the time of the
sentencing hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). In support, Hartson stated that, although he “did not
make a statement to the United States [Attorney’s Office], he did plead guilty to the indictment . . .
[and therefore] has assented to all of the knowledge and information that the [U.S.] Attorney has,
-2- No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
making a formal statement unnecessary.” The probation officer disagreed, responding that Hartson
“refused to meet with the Government” and therefore did not qualify for safety-valve relief.
At the sentencing hearing, Hartson renewed his objection, arguing that “pleading to the
indictment” and “his acceptance of responsibility, that ‘I went to LA and I knew I brought back
drugs’” were enough to qualify for safety-valve relief. He acknowledged, however, that he had
not “provide[d] a statement . . . to the government about his complete role in the offense” and
therefore had not met “the exact letter of the law” under § 3553(f)(5).
The district court asked Hartson if he wanted to continue the hearing so he could satisfy
§ 3553(f)(5)’s disclosure requirement, as the law required. But Hartson’s counsel explained that
Hartson “does not want to do that” because he feared for “his safety and how he will be treated by
the other prisoners” if he met with the government. Hartson himself then confirmed that he was
“not interested in speaking with the government, as would be required under [§ 3553(f)(5)].”
The government argued that § 3553(f)(5) required Hartson to meet with government
officials and provide a statement regarding “what he did” and “how the crime occurred, which
may necessarily include discussing other people.” Because Hartson had been provided several
opportunities to meet with government officials, but refused every time, the government contended
that he did not qualify for safety-valve relief.
The district court agreed with the government, explaining that to receive a safety-valve
reduction, “it’s not you admitting, it’s not you pleading, it’s not you cooperating, it’s that you
truthfully provide all that you know” to the government. Because Hartson had not done so, the
district court found that he was not eligible for a safety-valve reduction and overruled his objection.
Later, the district court gave Hartson one last opportunity to satisfy § 3553(f)(5)’s
disclosure requirement, but Hartson remained steadfast in his refusal to meet with or provide
-3- No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
information to the government. The district court then imposed the mandatory minimum sentence
of 120 months.
Hartson timely appealed.
II.
Hartson appeals a single issue—whether the district court erred in finding that he did not
qualify for a safety-valve reduction. A district court’s refusal to apply a safety-valve reduction is
a factual finding we review for clear error. United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir. 1996).
To be eligible for a safety-valve reduction, a defendant must satisfy the five criteria listed
in § 3553(f). Id. at 121; see also U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) (incorporating these criteria verbatim). A
defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a
safety-valve reduction. United States v. Haynes, 468 F.3d 422, 427 (6th Cir. 2006).
Here, the only question is whether Hartson carried his burden to show that he satisfied the
fifth criterion, to “truthfully provide[] 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” no “later than the time of the sentencing hearing.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f)(5). He did not.
Hartson contends that pleading guilty and stating, “I take full responsibility for the role that
I played in this case” and “I knew there were drugs coming back,” were enough to satisfy the fifth
criterion. In his view, doing so admitted “all facts in the case, making a separate ‘proffer’
redundant and unnecessary.”
Section 3553(f)(5), however, not only “requires a defendant to admit the conduct charged”
but also “imposes an affirmative obligation to volunteer any information aside from the conduct
comprising the elements of the offense.” United States v. Gardner, 32 F.4th 504, 526–27 (6th Cir.
-4- No. 25-3067, United States v. Hartson
2022) (citation modified); see also Haynes, 468 F.3d at 427 (concluding that even a four-page
statement “is of no consequence if the defendant possessed additional information that she did not
disclose to the [g]overnment”). This tell-all requirement is “greater than the requirement for an
acceptance of responsibility reduction” or simply pleading guilty. Adu, 82 F.3d at 124. And fear
of possible reprisals in prison for disclosing information to the government does not relieve a
defendant of § 3553(f)’s stringent requirements. United States v. Pena, 598 F.3d 289, 292–93 (6th
Cir. 2010) (collecting cases).
To qualify for safety-valve relief, Hartson needed to “truthfully provide all information he
ha[d] concerning the offense[s] of conviction and all relevant conduct,” i.e., “other offenses that
were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan,” no later than his
sentencing hearing. Adu, 82 F.3d at 124–25 (citation modified); see also U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 cmt.
n.1(C). But he provided no information whatsoever to the government, as he acknowledged at the
sentencing hearing. Further, he rejected two opportunities at that hearing to pause the proceedings
to allow him to satisfy the fifth criterion.
Thus, the district court correctly found that Hartson did not qualify for a safety-valve
reduction. Safety-valve relief is only for those defendants “who truly cooperate,” which Hartson
refused to do. Pena, 598 F.3d at 292 (quoting United States v. O’Dell, 247 F.3d 655, 675 (6th Cir.
2001)). Accordingly, we discern no error in the district court’s imposition of the mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
-5-