Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Enrique SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-21
Citations: 531 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 12-30178
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Enrique SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Enrique SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30178.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 21, 2013.
Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Bryan R. Whittaker, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Jose Enrique Santiago-Ramirez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Santiago-Ramirez argues that the district court erred procedurally by finding him ineligible for safety valve relief. We review for clear error, see United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2007), and find none. The record supports an inference that Santiago failed to provide the government with all of the information that he had concerning the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.1996) ("In determining whether [the defendant] had been truthful and completely forthcoming with information concerning the offense, the district court could consider information learned from other sources which indicated that [the defendant] had been less than forthcoming.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.