Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0600-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leobardo Olazabal CARRANZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 18, 2012.
    Daniel S. Meeonkie, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Paul Balazs, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leobardo Olazabal Carranza appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carranza contends that the district court erred by denying him relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. He argues that the district court failed to give reasons for the denial, to make factual findings, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The district court’s reasons for denying safety valve relief are evident from the record, and it did not clearly err in determining that Carranza did not provide the government truthful and complete information regarding the offense. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.1996). Furthermore, the district court had enough information to make a reasoned decision and therefore did not plainly err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.2001) (plain error review applies when the defendant does not request an evidentiary hearing); United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir.1996) (“There is no general right to an evidentiary hearing at sentencing.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.