N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GEOR GE R

AM IR EZ, Jr., AKA Ge orge R am ire z , De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10523

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-02322-R C C -JR -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 26, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a n d FR IEDM AN, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JUL 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c om e ba c k c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Pa ul L. Frie dm an, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C olum

bia , sitting by

de signa t ion.Pa ge 2 of 3

W he n this c a s e wa s la st be fore us, we va c a te d Ge orge R am ire z ’ s se nte nc e and re m ande d for the distric t c ourt to m ak e “ e xpre ss fa c tua l findings”in a ddre s sing R a

m ire z ’ s se nte nc ing e ntra

pm e nt a rgum e n t. Unite d State

s v . Ramire

z , 619 F. App’ x 615, 617 (9th C ir. 2015). Thedistric t c ourt m a de the re q

u ire d findings on re m and, a

nd R am ire z now c h a lle nge s those findings on a ppe a l . W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt’ s findings we re not c le arly e rrone o us a

nd the c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

re je c ting R am ire z ’ s se nte nc ing e ntra pm e nt a rgum e nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Blac k, 733 F.3d 294, 301–02 (9th C ir. 2013). Se nte nc ing e n t

ra pm e nt oc c urs whe n a

de fe nda nt, “ a lthough pre dispose d to c om m it a m inor or le sse r offe nse , is e ntra ppe d in c om

m i tting a gre ate r offe nse subje c t to gre a te r punishm e nt.” Unite d State s v . Yuman-He rnande

z , 712 F.3d 471, 474 (9th C i r. 2013); s e ealso United State s v . Me jia , 559 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th C ir. 2009). W he n the unde rly ing c rim e involve s a drug sting, the

de fe nda nt m ust show that he “ la c ke d the inte nt a

nd c a pa bility ” to posse ss the la

rge r qua n tity of drugs. Unite d State s v . Biao Huang , 687 F.3d 1197, 1203 (9th C ir. 2012). R am ire z fa i le d to m ake tha t showing here . In re c orde d c onve rsations, R am i re z a gre e d to ste a l 500 pounds of m arijua na and 10 kilogra

m s of c oc a ine . He argue s tha

t he wa s not pre dispose d to posse ss the c o c a ine be c a use , a lthough heha d a c rim i na l history for drug de a ling, he ha d only de a lt with m arijua

na . De spitePa ge 3 of 3

having se ve ra l opportunitie s to obje c t to the inc lusion of the c oc a ine , howe ve r, R am i re z ne ve r did so. Nor did he inform his pa role offic e r that the gove rnm e nt’ s inform an t wa s pre ssuring him to e nga ge in c rim ina l a c tivity tha t he did not wa

nt to c om m it. And a lthough Ram ire z e xpe c te d tha t the stora g e unit would c onta in c oc a ine , he did not he sita te to c arry

out the the ft. The distric t c ourt the re fore c orre c tly re je c te d R am ire z ’ s se nte nc i ng e ntra pm e nt a rgum e nt. AFFIRM E D.