United States of America v. Talanivalu Ygnacio Olotoa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TALANIVALU YGNACIO OLOTOA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10116
D.C. Nos.
1:15-cr-00190-LEK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2023**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BEA, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Talanivalu Olotoa appeals the district court’s denial of his second
motion for sentence reduction. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural
history, so we do not recite them here. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), we affirm.
* 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
FEB 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court concluded that Olotoa could not have qualified for the First
Step Act’s safety valve provision because Olotoa did not “truthfully provide[] to the
Government all information and evidence the defendant ha[d] concerning the
offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common
scheme or plan” before sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).
The district court’s conclusion is supported by the record. Olotoa’s signed
confession contained few details of his crimes. For example, Olotoa did not provide
the names of his suppliers or other information about how he acquired the drugs that
he shipped. Additional details not found in the confession were revealed at trial,
including Olotoa’s use of a code language to communicate with his co-conspirator.
Because the record demonstrates that Olotoa’s confession was not complete
and accurate, we cannot say that the district court’s conclusion was “illogical,
implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.”
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Accordingly, the decision was not an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --