Case ID: f-appx_674/html/0761-02.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. Antonio SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50550
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    
      Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robyn Kali Bacon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Greer Dotson, Ann C. Kim, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Of-fice 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: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)®. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that the district court erred by failing to consider evidence of derivative entrapment and its resulting sentencing entrapment as a mitigating factor to forego imposition of the five-year-sentence for his section 924(c) conviction. We disagree. Sanchez’s guilty plea waived any entrapment defense to his conviction. See United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, having suffered that conviction, Sanchez was subject to its mandatory five-year consecutive sentence, and the district court had no authority to depart below it. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)®; United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantial assistance and safety valve are the only grounds for imposing a sentence below a mandatory minimum).

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