United States of America v. Ricardo Velasco-Contraeras, a.k.a. Jorge Vasquez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RICARDO VELASCO-CONTRAERAS,
a.k.a. Jorge Vasquez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10454
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00107-HDM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Velasco-Contraeras appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for various drug offenses, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JUL 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10454 2
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Velasco-Contraeras contends that the district court erred by applying the
wrong legal standard when evaluating whether he was entitled to relief under the
safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The record
reflects that the district court applied the correct legal standard in denying safety
valve relief.
Velasco-Contraeras also contends that the district court clearly erred in
denying him relief under the safety valve provision. The record reflects that the
district court did not clearly err when it determined that Velasco-Contraeras did not
meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualified for
safety valve relief. See United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 409 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Velasco-Contraeras’s request for remand to the district court for an
evidentiary hearing is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --