Court Opinion

ID: 9375408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 18:00:54.5599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.686606
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10116

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos.
                                                1:15-cr-00190-LEK-1
 v.

TALANIVALU YGNACIO OLOTOA,                      MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Hawaii
                   Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 17, 2023**
                               Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BEA, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Appellant Talanivalu Olotoa appeals the district court’s denial of his second

motion for sentence reduction. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural

history, so we do not recite them here. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      The district court concluded that Olotoa could not have qualified for the First

Step Act’s safety valve provision because Olotoa did not “truthfully provide[] to the

Government all information and evidence the defendant ha[d] concerning the

offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common

scheme or plan” before sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

      The district court’s conclusion is supported by the record. Olotoa’s signed

confession contained few details of his crimes. For example, Olotoa did not provide

the names of his suppliers or other information about how he acquired the drugs that

he shipped. Additional details not found in the confession were revealed at trial,

including Olotoa’s use of a code language to communicate with his co-conspirator.

      Because the record demonstrates that Olotoa’s confession was not complete

and accurate, we cannot say that the district court’s conclusion was “illogical,

implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.”

United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Accordingly, the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

      AFFIRMED

                                         2