Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0540-01.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. Ricardo VELASCO-CONTRAERAS, a.k.a. Jorge Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 3, 2012.
    Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth A. Olson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael J. Kennedy, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Velasco-Contraeras appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for various drug offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Velasco-Contraeras contends that the district court erred by applying the wrong legal standard when evaluating whether he was entitled to relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The record reflects that the district court applied the correct legal standard in denying safety valve relief.

Velasco-Contraeras also contends that the district court clearly erred in denying him relief under the safety valve provision. The record reflects that the district court did not clearly err when it determined that Velasco-Contraeras did not meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualified for safety valve relief. See United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 409 (9th Cir.2003).

Velasco-Contraeras’s request for remand to the district court for an evidentia-ry hearing is denied.

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