T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e S us a n H . B l a c k, U ni t e d S t a t e s S e ni orC i r c ui tJ udge f or ** the E l e ve nth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. C AME R ON S HA WAYN E S MI T H, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30219 D . C . N o. 1: 10 -c r- 00 06 2-JD S -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na J a c k D . S ha ns tr om , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t7, 2012

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: G R A B E R , R A W L IN S O N , an d B L A C K * * , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ppe l l a ntC a m e r on S ha w a y ne S m i th c ha l l e nge s hi s s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. 

# FI LED AU G 10 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c o m m it c le a re rr o rin c o n c lu d in g th a t S m ith pos s e s s e d af

i r e a rm dur i ng the c om m i s s i on of hi s drug tr a f

f i c ki ng of f e ns e a nd ap p l yi n g an en h an cem en tp u rsu an tt o U n i t ed S t at es S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , w he r e the f i r e a rm w a s i n hi s apa rtm e ntw he r e drugs w e r e f ound. See U ni te d State s v . R e s tr e

po , 8 8 4 F .2 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ; se e al so U ni ted State s v . L opez - Sandov al , 14 6 F . 3d 71 2, 71 6 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( ho l di ng thatun l oaded fi re arm s qual i fyfor thi s e nh ance m ent ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n h ol di ng thatS m i th w as in e lig ib le f

o rs a f e tyv a lv e r e lie f

w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d th a t S m ith f

a ile d to d is c lo s e b u y e r s , s u p p lie r s , a n d g e n e r a l f a c ts ab o u t th e c h a in o f

d is tr ib u tio n . See 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f

) ( 5 ) ; s e e al

s o U ni te d State s v . Me

j i a- P i m e ntal , 477 F . 3d 1100, 1105 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( “ [ A ] de f e nda nts a t i s f

i e s hi s ‘ good f

a i th’ obl i ga t i on by p r o v id in g th e G o v e rn m e n t w ith tru th f u l, c o m p le te in f

o rm a tio n . . .” ) ; U

ni ted Stat es v . Shr e s tha , 8 6 F .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( n o tin g th a t th e g o o d f a ith re qu i re m enti ncl ud es “ prov i d[i ng ] i nform at i on concerni ng co-c on spi ra t ors” ) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng thatS m i th w as i ne l i gi bl e f

orthe tw o- poi ntr e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty w he r e the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatS m i th d i d n otadm i tt o al l cond uctcom pri si ng the offens e,3

in c lu d in g th e d ru g a m o u n t, h is r o le , a n d h is p o s s e s s io n o f th e f ir e a rm . See U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1, c m t . n. 1. S m i th’ s s ent ence w as no tsubst ant i vel y unrea sonabl e bec ause the di stri ct courtconsi dere d argum ent s of c ou nsel and the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, and sent ence d S m ith a t th e lo w e n d o f

th e g u id e lin e r a n g e . Se e U ni te d State s v . R e s s am , 679 F . 3d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) , as am e nde d (e n b anc) ( “ I n de t e rm i ni ng s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s , w e a r e t o c ons i de rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s . . . ” ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). AF F I RME D.