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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. FAB IOLA M A

NC O C AB ALLER O, a .k.a . Faviola M anz o, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30165

D.C . No. 1:14-c r-00022-SPW -2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 6, 2015 ** B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d C ANB Y, C irc uit Judge s . Fa biola M anc o C a

ba lle ro a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 168-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following her guilty -ple a c o nvic tion for c o nspira c y

to distribute

m e t ham phe t am ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 846 a

nd 

# FIL ED AUG 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).posse s sion with inte nt to distribute

m e tha m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 1 C a ba lle ro c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d at se nte nc ing whe n it de te rm i ne d the qua

ntity of m e tha m phe tam ine . In pa

rtic ula r, she c onte nds tha

t the distric t c o urt should not ha ve inc lude d 17 ounc e s of m e tha m phe t am ine a lle ge dly sold by C a ba l le ro to a

c onfide ntia l sourc e on De c e m be r 26, 2013 in Prim

m , Ne va da be c a use the re we re not suffic ie nt indic ia of re lia bility supporting a c onfide ntia l sourc e ’ s re port of tha t tra nsa c t ion. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion, and we find none . Se e Unite d State s v . Flore s , 725 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th C ir. 2013); U nite d State

s v . Be rry , 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th C ir. 2001). C a ba lle ro obje c te d to thequa ntity of m e tha m phe tam i ne in the distric t c ourt, a lthough she

did not obje c t to thepre -se nte nc e re port’ s fa c tua l sta te m e nt tha

t the c onfide ntia l sourc e purc ha se d m e tha m phe tam ine from he r on tha t date an d in tha

t loc ation. Thec onfide ntia l sourc e ’ s sta te m e nt a dm i tting to this tra nsa c tion a nd to an inc re a s e in the tota l qua ntity of m e tha m phe tam ine wa s se lf-inc ulpa tory , providing some indic i a

of re lia b ility . S e e Unite d State

s v . Huc k ins , 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th C i r. 1995) (re c ogniz ing tha t a se lf-inc ulpa

tory sta te m e nt is re lia

b le while

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

n d proc e dura l history unde rly ing this a

ppe a l, we do not re c ount the m he re .

2a

c olla t e ra l sta te m e nt is not); se e also United State s v . C ulps , 300 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha t, whe n a pproxim ating drug qua

ntity , “ the inform ation whic h supports a

n a pproxim ation m

ust posse ss suffic ie nt indic ia of re lia bility to support its proba

ble a c c ura c y ” ). In a ddition to the inhe re nt re l ia

bility of the c onfide ntia l sourc e ’ s inc ulpa tory sta te m e nt, the c onfide ntia l sourc e ’ s re lia bility wa s furthe r bolste re d be c a use a uthoritie s we re a

ble to c orroborate a

num be r of othe r stat e m e nts m a de by the c onfide ntia l sourc e , inc luding thec o nfide ntia l sourc e ’ s loc ation on the

da y of the dispute d transa c tion a nd C a ba lle ro’ s involve m e nt in two othe

r m e tha m phe tam i ne tra

nsa c tions. In fa c t, the Drug Enforc e m e nt Adm inistra

tion’ s Spe c ia l Age nt te stifie d tha t the c onfide ntia l sourc e ha d not provide d

him with a ny inform ation tha

t prove d to be unre l ia

ble . A pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e supporte d the drug qua ntity found by the distric t c ourt, a nd the c ourt ba se d its c onse rvative e stim ate of drug qua ntity on a suffic i e ntly

re lia ble sourc e . Thus, thedistric t c o urt did not e rr whe n it de te rm ine d the q ua ntity of m e tha m phe t am ine . Se e C

ulps , 300 F.3d a

t 1076. AFFIRM E D .

3