UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ CASTILLO (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Lopez-Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month, mandatory-minimum sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Castillo challenges the district court’s failure to award safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). He argues that the district court erred by failing to define the scope of the disclosure required under section 3553(f)(5) and failing to make a specific finding that his disclosure did not meet the requirement. This claim fails because the court specifically found that Lopez-Castillo had failed to provide the government with truthful and complete information about his involvement in the drug-trafficking organization. Lopez-Castillo has not shown that the court’s failure to say more was a violation of Rule 32(i)(3)(B), even assuming it is applicable here. The district court’s finding that Lopez-Castillo was ineligible for safety-valve relief was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2012). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by denying safety-valve relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir. 1996).

Lopez-Castillo also argues that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and its progeny abrogated mandatory-minimum sentencing. Our decision in United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010), forecloses this argument.

AFFIRMED.