Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier CONCHAS-ESCALANTE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 238 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 06-30465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier CONCHAS-ESCALANTE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAYY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier CONCHAS-ESCALANTE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30465.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Judith R. Harper, Esq., USME — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Leslie Jo Westphal, USPO — Office of the U.S. Attorney Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tonia L. Moro, Esq., FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAYY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Javier Conchas-Escalante appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appellant contends that the district court erred in denying him relief under the safety valve, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). In view of the record, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in doing so. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.1996).
After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that appellant did not lack either the intent or the ability to furnish the quantities of methamphetamine that the Government's undercover agent requested from him. See United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245, 250 n. 13 (9th Cir.1995) (setting forth the elements of a sentencing entrapment claim).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.