the government, Basey did not comply with this requirement when she refused to name the individuals who supplied the crack cocaine purchased by Jackson. Basey, however, maintains that she did not have to identify the crack cocaine suppliers in order to satisfy § 3553(f)(5) because the government had already discovered the suppliers’ identities prior to her sentencing hearing. The language of § 3553(f)(5) does not support Basey’s contention. This provision requires the disclosure of “all information and evidence” regarding the criminal activity at issue. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). Nothing in the statutory language indicates that this “blanket disclosure requirement” is limited by the needs of the government in a particular case. United States v. Maduka, 104 F.3d 891, 894-95 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, this court rejected such a limitation
holding that defendant failed to counter the ftcs substantial showing that he made statements and created an overall net impression of a misleading representation regarding the ability to remove negative information from consumers credit report even if the information was accurate complete and not obsolete recognizing that evidence that defendant refused to comply with the court order to provide a voice exemplar is admissible holding that immigration and naturalization service forms provided to aliens failed to satisfy due process notice requirements because they contained confusing and misleading information regarding the need to request a separate hearing and failed to inform aliens of the drastic consequences including immediate deportation of not making that request holding that a defendant convicted of distributing heroin failed to satisfy  3553f5 when he refused to provide complete information regarding the immediate chain of distribution holding that a failure to obtain prompt medical treatment for overdosing heroin user did not break the chain of legal causation under 21 usc  841b1c