context: The buyer, however, testified at sentencing that Mendoza had arranged the drug deal and had sold drugs to her on several previous occasions. Mendoza offered no evidence to rebut this witness's testimony, which the district court found credible.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 221 F.3d 1058, 1059
citation_a.parenthetical: district court did not clearly err in determining defendant was not fully truthful and in thus denying safety-valve relief, because defendant did not introduce any evidence to support his position
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Castaneda, 221 F.3d 1058, 1059 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (district court did not clearly err in determining defendant was not fully truthful and in thus denying safety-valve relief, because defendant did not introduce any evidence to support his position); cf. United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 703 (8th Cir.2003) (where district court directly observed defendant and other witnesses testify, finding no clear error in court’s assessment of their truthfulness).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 340 F.3d 700, 703
citation_b.parenthetical: where district court directly observed defendant and other witnesses testify, finding no clear error in court's assessment of their truthfulness
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Castaneda, 221 F.3d 1058, 1059 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (district court did not clearly err in determining defendant was not fully truthful and in thus denying safety-valve relief, because defendant did not introduce any evidence to support his position); cf. United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 703 (8th Cir.2003) (where district court directly observed defendant and other witnesses testify, finding no clear error in court’s assessment of their truthfulness).