United States of America v. Jose Lopez-Castillo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE LOPEZ-CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10098
D.C. No. 4:15-cr-02148-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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),
* 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).
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10098
(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
(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.

-- 2 of 2 --