Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0448-01.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. Cristobal Amancio MORALES, a.k.a. Amancio Cristobal Morales-Beltran, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50221
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 04, 2016
    
      Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jonathan Galatzan, Rosalind Wang, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael Raymond Belter, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Michael R. Belter, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, 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

Cristobal Amando Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morales contends that the district court erred in denying his request for safety-valve relief. We review for clear error, see United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007), and find none. The record supports the district court’s finding that Morales did not truthfully provide the government with all of the information he had concerning the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). Moreover, contrary to Morales’s contention, his proffer sessions did not constitute a “good faith” effort to cooperate with the government. See Mejiar-Pimental, 477 F.3d at 1106 (a defendant who provides evasive answers and whose conduct was more extensive than his proffer suggests has not met the good faith standard).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.