United States of America v. Gabriel Valenzuela-Sainz

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL VALENZUELA-SAINZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50561
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02813-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Valenzuela-Sainz appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Our jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 08-50561 2
we dismiss.
Valenzuela-Sainz contends the district court erred by failing to recommend
him to the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) 500-hour residential treatment program for
substance abuse. Authority to determine whether a prisoner enters a residential
treatment program resides in the executive branch of the government and is
delegated to the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), (e); see also Downey v. Crabtree,
100 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[The BOP] has broad discretion over the entire
drug-treatment process within the federal corrections system, beginning with
determining which inmates ever enter substance-abuse programs.”). Because
eligibility and referral to the residential substance abuse treatment program is not
within the district court’s authority, we have no jurisdiction to consider
Valenzuela-Sainz’s claim on appeal.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --