Case ID: f-appx_470/html/0683-01.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 Robledo CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50212.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    Luella M. Caldito, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Joseph Mccabe, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael J. Mccabe, San Diego, CA, Michael Ian Garey, Esquire, Law Office of Michael Ian Garey, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Ricardo Robledo Castaneda, pro se.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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 Robledo Castaneda appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castaneda contends that the district court erred by finding him ineligible for safety valve relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The district court’s factual determination that Castaneda failed to provide truthful and complete information to the government was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105-06 (9th Cir.2007). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir.1996).

Castaneda also contends that the district court erred by declining to award a minor role adjustment because he was substantially less culpable than the average co-participant. The district court did not clearly err by declining to award the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006). In any case, as the district court noted, this issue is moot in light of the determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

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