Case ID: f-appx_487/html/0389-01.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. Zaira Elizabeth CORONEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50128.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
    Jaime D. Parks, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Janice M. Deaton, Law Offices of Janice Deaton, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zaira Elizabeth Coronel appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Coronel contends that the district court erred by applying the wrong legal standard when evaluating whether she was entitled to relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The record reflects that the district court applied the correct legal standard in denying safety valve relief.

Coronel also contends that the district court erred by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for denying relief and because Coronel made a good-faith effort to truthfully provide all information and evidence concerning the offense. The record supports the district court’s determination that Coronel’s testimony was inconsistent and conflicting. The district court did not cleárly err when it determined that Coronel did not meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she qualified for safety valve relief. See United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 409 (9th Cir.2003).

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