Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleuterio LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jacinto Lopez-Corona, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 512 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 11-50527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleuterio LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jacinto Lopez-Corona, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 730–730

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleuterio LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jacinto Lopez-Corona, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50527.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Christina T. Shay, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Manuel Lopez, Law Office of Manuel Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, Arturo Hernandez-Melendez, Law Offices of Arturo Hernandez-M. San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eleuterio Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eleuterio Lopez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed because Lopez waived his right to appeal his sentence. We review the enforceability of the appeal waiver de novo, see United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir.2009), and decline to enforce it because it is unclear whether the waiver encompasses the issues Lopez raises on appeal, see id. at 986 ("Plea agreements are interpreted using contract principles with any ambiguity construed in the defendant's favor.").
Lopez contends that the district court erred in concluding that he was ineligible for safety-valve relief. We review the district court's factual determination of safety-valve eligibility for clear error. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2007). The district court did not clearly err because the record reflects that Lopez failed to give truthful and complete information about when he became involved in the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d at 1105.
Lopez also contends that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing in order to prove Lopez's eligibility for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We decline to address this contention on direct appeal. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.