Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Anthony VALENTINE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 421 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 10-50279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Anthony VALENTINE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Anthony VALENTINE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50279.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Thomas Blanchard Snyder, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Gary Anthony Valentine appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valentine contends that the district court erred in determining that the government's substantial assistance motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) permitted it to consider only factors related to substantial assistance, and not the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in determining the extent of the downward departure. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2009).
Valentine also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors. Because the district court could not reduce Valentine's sentence on the basis of those factors, this contention fails. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.