Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dario TEQUIDA-ESQUER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 503
Docket Number: No. 13-10514
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dario TEQUIDA-ESQUER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dario TEQUIDA-ESQUER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10514.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rosemarie Valdez, Esquire, Law Office of Rosemarie Valdez, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, 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
Dario Tequida-Esquer appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and 846; and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Tequida-Esquer contends that the district court erred by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence based in part on its finding that Tequida-Esquer possessed a firearm in connection with his offense and was, therefore, ineligible to be sentenced under the safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3558(f). Tequida-Esquer argues that the facts underlying the safety valve determination must be submitted to a jury under Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Lizarraga-Carrizales, 757 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir.2014) ("[T]he denial of safety valve relief does not increase the statutory maximum or minimum such that Alleyne is implicated . Accordingly, the factual predicate for denying safety valve relief need not be proven to a jury.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.