Case ID: f-appx_344/html/0331-01.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. Martin GONZALEZ-ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-30435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
    Frank Papagni, Assistant U.S., Office of U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, Stephen Francis Peifer, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Robert Levine, Law Office of Michael R. Levine, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Gonzalez-Robles appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Robles contends that the district court improperly determined that he was ineligible for “safety valve” relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and failed adequately to explain that determination. For those reasons, he also contends that his sentence is unreasonable. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gonzalez-Robles did not truthfully provide all relevant information concerning the conduct for which he was sentenced. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929-30 (9th Cir.1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

The district court did not err in explaining that determination. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-60, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Further, the district court’s sentence determination was not unreasonable. See id.

The Government’s motion to supplement the record is granted.

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