United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 98-1971
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Southern District of Iowa.
Carlos Penuelas-Santos,                 *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                  *
                                   ___________

                          Submitted: April 7, 1999
                              Filed: April 12, 1999
                                   ___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Carlos Penuelas-Santos pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing Penuelas-Santos argued, as relevant,
that he was eligible for relief under the “safety-valve” exception to the statutory
minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5C1.2 (1998). After hearing testimony from two government witnesses, the district
court1 found that Penuelas-Santos was not entitled to safety-valve relief, and


      1
       The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment (the statutory minimum) and four years
supervised release. Penuelas-Santos appeals, and we affirm.

       After carefully reviewing the sentencing-hearing transcript, we reject Penuelas-
Santos’s argument that the court misinterpreted the language of section five of the
safety-valve statute, as the court’s reading tracked the statute’s and Guideline’s plain
language. See United States v. Akbani, 

, 777 (8th Cir. 1998) (reviewing
de novo district court’s legal interpretation of terminology in Guidelines).
Furthermore, the burden was on Penuelas-Santos to show that he had satisfied the
statute’s elements, and we do not believe the district court clearly erred in finding that
Penuelas-Santos failed to truthfully provide all information he had “concerning the
offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common
scheme or plan.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5C1.2(5) (1998); United States v. Weekly, 

, 581 (8th Cir.) (standard
of review), modified on other grounds, 

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.
Ct. 611 (1997); United States v. Romo, 

, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996).

      We also believe Penuelas-Santos’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
would be more appropriately addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where a
record can be fully developed. See United States v. Mitchell, 

, 1193
(8th Cir. 1998).

      Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.



                                           -2-