not to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. In sum, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Arnold failed to satisfy the safety valve’s disclosure requirement and, therefore, correctly concluded that § 3553(f) did not afford Arnold relief from the statutorily mandated minimum sentence for the conspiracy crime of conviction. 4. Parsimony Challenge to Sentence Arnold submits that his 121-month prison sentence, which represents the low end of his Sentencing Guidelines range, and is one month longer than the statutorily mandated minimum sentence, is substantively unreasonable in that it violates the parsimony clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and unspecified provisions of the Constitution. This argument is defeated by precedent. See United States v. Carter, 696 F.3d 229, 232-33 (2d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Huerta, 878 F.2d
holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding that application of statutory mandatory minimum in  841b1a does not violate defendants fifth and fourteenth amendment rights holding the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that tenyear mandatory minimum sentence for crack conspiracy does not violate  3553a parsimony clause