The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-10470•United States of America v. Jorge Guerra-Esparza
12-10470Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 24, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE GUERRA-ESPARZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10470
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01947-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Guerra-Esparza appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846; and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting, in
FILED
JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Guerra-Esparza contends that the district court committed legal error when it
denied him safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Notwithstanding the
court’s alleged misstatements regarding the requirements for obtaining safety-
valve relief, the record reflects that the court agreed with the government’s
determination that Guerra-Esparza had not truthfully and fully provided the
government with all of the information he had concerning the offense. Because the
record supports this determination, the district court did not clearly err in denying
relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103
(9th Cir. 2007).
Because the district court lacked discretion to sentence Guerra-Esparza
below the statutory mandatory minimum, we do not reach his remaining
contentions of sentencing error.
Guerra-Esparza’s stipulated motion to supplement the record is granted.
AFFIRMED.
12-10470 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.