Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezequiel RODRIGUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-20
Citations: 472 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 11-50354
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezequiel RODRIGUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezequiel RODRIGUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50354.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 20, 2012.
Alessandra Serano, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathryn A. Thickstun, Law Offices of Kathryn Thickstun Leff, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Ezequiel Rodriguez, Jr., appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed in light of the appeal waiver set forth in Rodriguez's plea agreement. We decline to reach the issue of whether this appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
Rodriguez contends that the district court erred by denying him relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The district court's finding that Rodriguez was ineligible for safety valve relief because he did not give the government all of the information that he had regarding the offense was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Alba-Flores, 577 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.