Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-28
Citations: 350 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 09-10062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10062.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 28, 2009.
Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harlan Yoshito Kimura, Esquire, CJA Panel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joe Daniels appeals from the 170-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for drug crimes in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Daniels contends that the district court improperly determined that he was ineligible for "safety valve" relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Daniels failed to provide to the government all relevant information concerning the conduct for which he was sentenced. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929-30 (9th Cir.1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
Daniels also contends that the district court failed properly to consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when it sentenced him. The record reflects that the district court did not commit procedural error and that Daniels's sentence is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.