See United States v. Roman-Zarate, 115 F.3d 778, 785 (10th Cir.1997) (“If [the defendant] chooses not to divulge names of his drug couriers or contacts because he suspects his colleagues-in-crime may be less than supportive of his decision, he is entitled to remain silent; but, he is no longer entitled to special treatment from the district court [under the safety-valve provision].”); United States v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 523 (1st Cir.1996) (“Defendants often have reasons, such as loyalty to a confederate or fear of retribution, for not wanting to make full disclosure. But full disclosure is the price that Congress has attached to relief under the statute, and the burden remains on the defendant to prove his entitlement.”); cf. United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In a variation on this argument, Gilliam
holding that a defendant bears the burden of establishing affirmative defenses under the wprkers compensation statute holding defendant bears burden of establishing affirmative defense of official immunity holding that defendant has the burden of establishing eligibility for the safetyvalve provision which clearly requires an affirmative act by the defendant truthfully disclosing all the information he possesses that concerns his offense or related offenses recognizing that federal preemption is affirmative defense as to which defendant has burden of proof holding that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that he properly served an agent of the defendant