United States v. Ricardo Castaneda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50212 · 2012-03-05 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Robledo CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012

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. 11-50212 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04623-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * RICARDO ROBLEDO CASTANEDA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Robledo Castaneda appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 1291, and we affirm.

Castaneda contends that the district court erred by finding him ineligible for safety valve relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The district court’s factual determination that Castaneda failed to provide truthful and complete information to the government was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir. 1996).

Castaneda also contends that the district court erred by declining to award a minor role adjustment because he was substantially less culpable than the average co-participant. The district court did not clearly err by declining to award the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2006).

In any case, as the district court noted, this issue is moot in light of the determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50212