Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco OROPEZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 419 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 10-30178
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco OROPEZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco OROPEZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30178.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Aaron Nicholas Lucoff, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dennis Michael Charney, Charney & Associates, Eagle, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Francisco Oropeza appeals from the sentence of 84 months and one day imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for drug trafficking conspiracy and distribution offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 846; and his jury-trial conviction for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Oropeza contends that the district court erred in concluding that it could not impose a sentence below the statutory minimum because, through the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Congress repealed by implication the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of § 924(c)(1). Orope-za's contention is foreclosed by United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.