Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chong Hyon McGREW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-26
Citations: 191 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 05-10240
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chong Hyon McGREW, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 191
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chong Hyon McGREW, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10240.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 26, 2006.
USHA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Curtis C. Van De Veld, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chong Hyon McGrew appeals from the sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction to distribution of methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McGrew contends that the district court erred in determining that she was ineligible for the safety valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that McGrew did not satisfy the burden of showing that she truthfully provided all information known to her regarding her distributors and suppliers. See United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 409 (9th Cir.2003).
McGrew also contends that this case should be remanded to the district court to make a finding on her motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The record establishes that the district court considered McGrew's motion and does not support her contention that the district court misunderstood its authority to grant it.
We review a sentence imposed after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), for reasonableness. Because we conclude that the sentence is reasonable, we affirm. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.