United States v. Jose Ramirez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50041 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:06-CR-01242-DMS v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE RAMIREZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ramirez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AH/Research methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramirez contends that the district court erred when it determined that Ramirez was not eligible for the “safety valve” relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)
and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The district court did not clearly err when it determined that Ramirez failed to truthfully provide to the government all relevant information concerning the conduct for which he was convicted and sentenced. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f)(5); see also United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
AH/Research 09-50041