HOWARD G. MUNSON, Senior United States District Judge
On June 26, 1997, defendant-petitioner Gilberto Arce was convicted of conspiracy to sell cocaine and selling cocaine. On April 23, 1998 he was sentenced to be imprisoned for 151 months to be followed by five years of supervised release. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on December 5, 2000. United States n. Murgas, 233 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 2000).
Gilberto Arce now moves pursuant to the "safety valve" provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) for the correction or modification of his sentence. This provision permits a defendant to be sentenced below statutory mandatory minimum sentences that would otherwise apply if defendant does not have more than one criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines, and he meets the requirements set out in the statute.
In order to be eligible for the safety valve, Arce has the burden of proving each of the five criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and 5C1.2 by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Conde, 178 F.3d 616, 620 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Gambino, 106 F.3d 1105, 1110 (2d Cir. 1997). The only criterion that the court need to consider in this case is the fifth, which requires the petitioner "[t]o disclose all he knows concerning both his involvement and that of any co-conspirators." See United States v. Ortez, 136 F.3d 882, 883 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
Following Arce's conviction, his counsel advised the interested authorities that his client would be available for interviews in connection with intention to apply for a "safety valve reduction at his sentencing. However, at his sentencing hearing his counsel advised the court he and government authorities tried to schedule an interview with Arce, he chose not to participate. (Pltf-Resp. Ex 1 — Sentencing Transcript, p. 4).
Gilberto Arce did not provide the requisite information, made no offer concerning it and declined to meet with government authorities. This is not a situation where any chance of misinterpretion or disdain by government authorities occurred when Arce sought to furnish the essential information. The statute requires a defendant to provide the information by the time of sentencing. Arce merely stated his willingness to the district court to provide that information and to request sentencing under the safety valve provisions on the basis of that statement of willingness. More was required of him to meet the fifth requirement of the statute. Because a defendant must meet all five requirements to get the safety valve provision benefits and Arce has failed to satisfy the fifth requirement, the court need not reach the question of whether Arce met the other requirements.
Accordingly, the motion by Defendant-Petitioner Gilberto Arce for the correction of his sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.