Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcial CARDENAS-VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 10-30207
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcial CARDENAS-VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcial CARDENAS-VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30207.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lana Cece Glenn, Law Offices of Lana C. Glenn, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Marcial Cardenas-Villanueva ' appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and destruction of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cardenas-Villanueva contends that the district court clearly erred at sentencing by denying safety-valve relief based on its determination that Cardenas-Villanueva failed to meet his burden of establishing that he had truthfully provided to the government all of the information he had concerning the offense. The record reflects that the district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1284 (9th Cir.2006) ("So long as the district court's view of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, it cannot be clearly erroneous.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.