The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court's decision to grant safety valve relief to Paul Engstrom, vacating his below-minimum sentence in a drug-related criminal case and ordering resentencing.
In *United States v. Engstrom* (9th Cir. 2026), a three-judge panel held that Engstrom was not eligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which allows courts to impose sentences below statutory minimums for certain drug offenses when specific criteria are met.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, where Engstrom pleaded guilty to drug-related crimes. District Judge Anne R. Traum initially imposed a below-minimum sentence after conducting a resentencing hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.
The government appealed the district court's safety valve determination, leading to oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco on Sept. 17, 2025. The appellate panel, consisting of Circuit Judges David F. Hamilton, Ryan D. Nelson, and Patrick J. Bumatay, issued its opinion on Feb. 5, 2026, with Judge Nelson writing for the court.
The safety valve provision under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) allows federal judges to sentence defendants below mandatory minimum penalties in drug cases when they meet five specific criteria. These requirements are designed to benefit lower-level, non-violent drug offenders who cooperate with authorities and have minimal criminal histories.
The Ninth Circuit found that Engstrom failed to qualify for safety valve relief for two primary reasons. First, the court held that Engstrom did not provide a complete debrief to the government before sentencing, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). This provision mandates that defendants truthfully provide all information and evidence they have concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct.
The appellate court rejected the district court's more lenient approach to the debriefing requirement. According to the Ninth Circuit's opinion, the trial court had "proceeded as if virtually any truthful statement given upon arrest, a truthful guilty plea allocution" would satisfy the complete debriefing requirement. The appeals court found this interpretation too broad and inconsistent with the statutory language.
The complete debriefing requirement has been a source of litigation in federal drug cases, as courts have struggled to define what constitutes adequate cooperation. The safety valve provision requires defendants to provide "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." Courts must determine whether defendants have met this standard based on the totality of their cooperation efforts.
The Ninth Circuit also addressed Engstrom's procedural challenge to the district court's decision to conduct a Rule 35 resentencing hearing. Rule 35 allows courts to correct sentences that were imposed as a result of arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. Engstrom argued that the appellate court could not review the district court's decision to hold the hearing, but the panel rejected this argument.
The court applied a plain error standard of review to the district court's decision to conduct the Rule 35 hearing. The panel determined that because the district court had identified a clear error of a "technical" kind in the original sentencing hearing, the decision to hold the resentencing hearing was not plain error.
This ruling clarifies the scope of appellate review for Rule 35 proceedings and reinforces that such decisions remain subject to review, even when defendants argue they fall outside the court's jurisdiction.
The decision has implications for federal drug sentencing practices, particularly regarding the application of safety valve provisions. Defense attorneys representing clients seeking below-minimum sentences must ensure their clients meet all five statutory criteria, including the complete debriefing requirement.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension between district courts' discretion in sentencing and appellate oversight of statutory interpretation. While trial judges have significant discretion in weighing evidence and making factual determinations, appellate courts retain authority to ensure consistent application of federal sentencing statutes.
With the case remanded to the district court, Judge Traum must now resentence Engstrom without the benefit of safety valve relief. This likely means Engstrom will face a sentence at or above the applicable statutory minimum, depending on the specific charges and his criminal history.
The ruling reinforces the strict requirements for safety valve eligibility and may influence how other defendants and their counsel approach cooperation with federal prosecutors in drug cases. The decision emphasizes that partial cooperation or statements made during arrest and plea proceedings alone may not satisfy the complete debriefing requirement necessary for below-minimum sentences.