United States of America v. Leobardo Olazabal Carranza

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEOBARDO OLAZABAL CARRANZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10238
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00206-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leobardo Olazabal Carranza appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
120-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10238 2
Carranza contends that the district court erred by denying him relief under
the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. He argues
that the district court failed to give reasons for the denial, to make factual findings,
or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The district court’s reasons for denying
safety valve relief are evident from the record, and it did not clearly err in
determining that Carranza did not provide the government truthful and complete
information regarding the offense. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929
(9th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the district court had enough information to make a
reasoned decision and therefore did not plainly err by failing to hold an evidentiary
hearing. See United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain error
review applies when the defendant does not request an evidentiary hearing); United
States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir. 1996) (“There is no general
right to an evidentiary hearing at sentencing.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --