Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0503-01.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. Dario TEQUIDA-ESQUER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10514.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
    Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Rosemarie Valdez, Esquire, Law Office of Rosemarie Valdez, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dario Tequida-Esquer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and 846; and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tequida-Esquer contends that the district court erred by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence based in part on its finding that Tequida-Esquer possessed a firearm in connection with his offense and was, therefore, ineligible to be sentenced under the safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3558(f). Tequida-Esquer argues that the facts underlying the safety valve determination must be submitted to a jury under Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Lizarraga-Carrizales, 757 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir.2014) (“[T]he denial of safety valve relief does not increase the statutory maximum or minimum such that Alleyne is implicated ... Accordingly, the factual predicate for denying safety valve relief need not be proven to a jury.”).

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