Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro GARCIA-VARGAS, a.k.a. Ulises Anaya, a.k.a. Ulysis Anaya, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-24
Citations: 467 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 11-30025
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro GARCIA-VARGAS, a.k.a. Ulises Anaya, a.k.a. Ulysis Anaya, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro GARCIA-VARGAS, a.k.a. Ulises Anaya, a.k.a. Ulysis Anaya, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30025.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ulysis Anaya, Lisa Jeannine Bazant, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Pedro Garcia-Vargas appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 843 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Contrary to Garcia-Vargas' contention, the district court did not clearly err in finding Garcia-Vargas ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) where Garcia-Vargas' proffer was inconsistent with the testimony adduced at trial by the law enforcement agent who investigated the crime and the proffer made by his co-defendant. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1107 (9th Cir.2007) (where proffer of knowledge and participation is truthful and complete, it suffices for purposes of safety valve relief).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.