United States of America v. Jeronimo Madriz-Reyna

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)(C).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERONIMO MADRIZ-REYNA,
Respondent.
No. 08-10563
D.C. No. CR- 07-004 -CRB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jeronimo Madriz-Reyna (“Madriz”) appeals his sentence of 188 months’
imprisonment, imposed following his guilty pleas to four counts of drug-related
FILED
DEC 21 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
charges. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
1. The district court found, after two proffer sessions, that Madriz’s
testimony was implausible. Thus, the court further found that Madriz failed to
meet the truthfulness requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5), making him ineligible
for safety-valve relief. We conclude that denial of safety-valve relief was proper
because the district court’s finding that Madriz was untruthful was not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Alba-Flores, 577 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. The district court permitted Madriz’s co-defendant, Ulises
Castellanos-Cisneros (“Castellanos”), to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination and not testify at Madriz’s sentencing proceeding,
although Castellanos had already been sentenced. Madriz contends that the district
court erred and violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. We
conclude, however, that any Sixth Amendment error was harmless, see United
States v. Winn, 767 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), because Madriz
failed to show that Castellanos could offer any testimony that would have been
helpful to Madriz.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --