Case ID: f-appx_220/html/0689-01.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. Alberto AYON-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 8, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2007.
    Richard C. Cheng, Esq., Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Vince J. Brunkow, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
    
      
      . , . , r. , , . ' ™ls Panf unanimously finds this case smtable for decision without oral argument. See ^ec*' ^-APP- 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant raised his sentencing claims in his original appeal, but we ordered a remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), without resolving these claims. See United States v. Ayon-Perez, 150 Fed.Appx. 711 (9th Cir.2005) (mem.). As such, they were preserved. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006) (defendant cannot raise “new claims” after an Ameline remand).

In order to be eligible for safety valve relief, defendant must have “truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (emphasis added). The district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant failed to tell all he knew. United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.1996) (factual determinations made in assessing safety valve relief are reviewed for clear error).

Given the state of the record, which included evidence that defendant possessed a large quantity of narcotics when he was arrested, the district court did not clearly err in finding defendant ineligible for a “minor participant” adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). See United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 557 (9th Cir.1989) (a district court’s determination on a minor role adjustment is reviewed for clear error); United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (possession of a substantial quantity of narcotics is grounds for refusing a minor role adjustment).

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