United States v. Anthony Navarro

background. Cf. United States v. Safirstein, 827 F.2d 1380, 1386 (9th Cir 1987).

3 Finally, the district court did not violate Navarro’s Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination. Counsel informed the court that she had

extensive conversations with Navarro regarding the safety valve and minor role

reductions. And after the district court explained that, by not trying to qualify for

those reductions, Navarro was guaranteeing that his sentence would be longer than

if he had qualified for them, counsel expressed appreciation for the court’s

comments and suggested that it would be helpful if the court spoke to Navarro

directly about his decision not to disclose the information needed to qualify for the

reductions. In doing so, the court explained to Navarro, “You are not being

punished for electing not to tell the government everything you know, but you are

not getting the benefit.” This is therefore not a case where the district court held

defendant’s “silence against [him] in determining the facts of the offense at the

sentencing hearing.” Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 330 (1999).

AFFIRMED.

4