Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador GARZA-CARDENAS, a.k.a. Ramon Hernandez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-22
Citations: 414 F. App'x 986
Docket Number: No. 09-10152
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador GARZA-CARDENAS, a.k.a. Ramon Hernandez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 986–987

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador GARZA-CARDENAS, a.k.a. Ramon Hernandez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10152.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 22, 2011.
Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francisco Leon, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, 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
Salvador Garza-Cardenas appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for drug crimes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garza-Cardenas contends that the district court erred by failing to grant safety-valve relief because the district court relied on (1) the fact that Garza-Cardenas had not fully disclosed prior uncharged criminal activity, and (2) the fact that Garza-Cardenas had organized other drug shipments prior to sentencing while he was out on bond. The district court did not clearly err by denying relief based on its conclusion that Garza-Cardenas had not provided a completely truthful account regarding his role in the conspiracy. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that a defendant's good faith obligation under section 3553(f) is satisfied by providing the government with truthful and complete information by the time of the sentencing hearing).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.