United States of America v. Gary Anthony Valentine

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
GARY ANTHONY VALENTINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50279
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03489-JLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gary Anthony Valentine appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50279 2
Valentine contends that the district court erred in determining that the
government’s substantial assistance motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) permitted it
to consider only factors related to substantial assistance, and not the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in determining the extent of the downward departure.
This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1036
(9th Cir. 2009).
Valentine also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in
light of the section 3553(a) factors. Because the district court could not reduce
Valentine’s sentence on the basis of those factors, this contention fails. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --