criminal activity” that “occurred during the commission of the offense of convictionU.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(B). When the offense involves conspiracy or a jointly undertaken criminal venture, we require the defendant to disclose not only everything he knows about his own actions, but also everything he knows about his co-conspirators. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d at 378; see also United States v. O’Dell, 247 F.3d 655, 675 (6th Cir.2001) (“Application of the safety valve provision not only requires a defendant to admit the conduct charged, but it also imposes an affirmative obligation on the defendant to volunteer any information aside from the conduct comprising the elements of the offense.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); United States v. Sabir, 117 F.3d 750, 753 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The disclosure must “not merely [be] truthful
holding subsection a5 requires a defendant to reveal a broader scope of information about the relevant criminal conduct to the authorities holding the government did not violate its plea agreement with a defendant because in addition to specifically retaining the right to comment at the sentencing hearing concerning defendants conduct and background the prosecuting attorney had a duty to bring all relevant information about defendant to the courts attention at the time of sentencing holding that public interest in individuals alleged involvement in criminal activity insignificant because disclosure would reveal little to nothing about agency conduct let alone conduct of the agency possessing the documents holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct holding that because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection