Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0710-02.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. Francisco OROPEZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30178.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    
      Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Aaron Nicholas Lucoff, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dennis Michael Charney, Charney & Associates, Eagle, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Francisco Oropeza appeals from the sentence of 84 months and one day imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for drug trafficking conspiracy and distribution offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846; and his jury-trial conviction for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Oropeza contends that the district court erred in concluding that it could not impose a sentence below the statutory minimum because, through the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Congress repealed by implication the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of § 924(c)(1). Orope-za’s contention is foreclosed by United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010).

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