Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon MOLISTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-20
Citations: 474 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 11-10502
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon MOLISTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 657–657

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon MOLISTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10502.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 20, 2012.
Jerry Robert Albert, Assistant U.S., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven D. West, Steven D. West, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Leon Molisto appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Molisto contends that the district court should have applied the rule of lenity to sentence him to a term below the statutory minimum. Because there is no dispute that Molisto had three criminal history points, the district court lacked discretion to sentence him beneath the statutory minimum term of 60 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(l); United States v. Hernandez-Castro, 473 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir.2007) ("[District courts have no authority to adjust criminal history points for the purpose of determining eligibility for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), even when the sentencing court concludes that the criminal history calculation overstates the severity of the prior crimes.").
AFFIRMED.
fhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.