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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JESUS JOR GE FLORES-R AM IR E Z, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50330

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00689-PA-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 4, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, GR A B ER , a nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Je sus Jorge Flore s-R am ire z a p pe a ls his c o nvic tions of c onspira c y to distribute

c oc a ine unde r 21 U.S.C . § 846, a n d distribution of c oc a ine unde r 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and his se nte nc e . W e a ffirm the c onvic tion but
re m and for re se nte nc i ng. 

# FIL ED OCT 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by a dm itting De fe nda

nt’ s
c onfe s sion, a

ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

use the e v ide nc e of guilt wa s
ove rwhe lm ing. Unite d State s v. B utle r, 249 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th C ir. 2001). Am ong othe r things, Spe c ia l Age nt B a k e r ide ntifie d

De fe nda nt a t tria l a s the individual who de live re d c oc a ine to him . B ake r a lso te s tifie d tha t he an d De fe nda nt ide n tifie d

one anothe r through c ode nam e s a n d the se ria l num

be r on a dolla r bill. B ake r an d the othe r gove rnm e nt a ge nts c om m unic ate d, through a

n
e nc ry pte d B la c kbe rry , with a

n inte rm e dia

ry in a rranging De fe nda

n t’ s de live ry . Photogra phs a nd a n a udio re c ording c a

pture d the tra

nsa c tion. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing De fe n da nt sa fe ty -va lve re lie f unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32 on theground tha t De fe nda nt ha d not truthfully provide d to thegove rnm e nt a ll the inform ation tha t he ha d c onc e rning the drug de live ry . Se e Unite d State s v. C arte r, 219 F.3d 863, 866 (9th C ir. 2000) (stating tha

t c om plia nc e with R

ule 32 is re vie w e d de novo); Unite d State s v. R e a lHe rnande z , 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th C ir. 1996) (c onc luding tha t the de fe nda

nt m ust provide truthfully

a ll inform ation he ha d c onc e rning his offe nse to qua lify for
sa fe ty -va lve re l i e f). The c ourt pre viously found tha

t De fe nda nt ha d lie d a

b out not knowing a

t the tim e of de live ry

tha t the boxe s c o nta ine d drugs a nd a b out his use

of
c ode words a

nd c o unte rsurve illa

nc e driving te c hnique s, a

m ong othe r things. The 2c ourt found it im pla usible tha t, if De fe nda

nt we re te l ling thetruth, he c ould ha ve be e n e n truste d with so la

rge a qua ntity of drugs. Thec ourt re fe re nc e d those findings in deny ing sa fe ty -va lve re lie f. 3. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in de ny ing De fe nda nt a downwa rd
a djustm e nt for a c c e pta

nc e of re sponsibility on the ground tha t De fe n da nt de nie d signific ant a spe c ts of his c rim ina l c onduc t. Unite d State s v. Fle m ing, 215 F.3d 930, 939 (9th C i r. 2000). The c ourt re c ogniz e d tha t it c o uld gra

nt a n a djustm e nt e ve n though De fe nda

nt ha d gone to tria l, but it den ie d the a djustm e nt be c a use it found,
am ong othe r things, tha

t De fe nda nt lie d a bout the tim ing of his knowle dge tha t he
wa s de live ring c o c a ine
. 4. In light of Unite d State s v. Quinte ro-Le yva , 823 F.3d 519, 524 (9th C ir. 2016), thepa

rtie s a gre e tha

t re m and to the distric t c ourt is a ppropria te so tha t it c an
c onside r the ne wly

e nunc iate d fa c tors for a

m inor role re duc t ion unde r Am e ndm e nt 794 to U.S.S.G § 3B 1.2. Though the Am e ndm e nt wa s not in e ffe c t at the tim e of De fe nda nt’ s se n te nc i ng, it a

p plie s re troa c tive ly . Id. This issue ne e d not be
re m ande d to a

diffe re nt distric t c ourt judgebe c a use the c irc um sta

nc e s he re are not
unusua l. Unite d State s v. W aknine , 543 F.3d 546, 559–60 (9th C ir. 2008). Convic tion AFFIRM E D; se nte nc e V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for
r e se nte nc ing. 3