United States of America v. Rodolfo Lopez-Cupa

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RODOLFO LOPEZ-CUPA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30309
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05723-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Lopez-Cupa appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine,
and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
FILED
OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30309 2
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Cupa contends that the district court erred by denying him relief
under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We review for clear error
the district court’s factual determination that a defendant is ineligible for safety
valve relief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 447 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.
2007). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Lopez-Cupa did not
truthfully provide the government all of the information he had regarding the
offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); United States v. Orm
Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1144-45 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 775 (2012).
Because a defendant must meet all of the conditions set forth in section 3553(f) to
be entitled to safety valve relief, see United States v. Alba-Flores, 577 F.3d 1104,
1107 (9th Cir. 2009), the district court properly denied Lopez-Cupa relief.
Lopez-Cupa also contends that the district court erred in applying
obstruction of justice and aggravating role adjustments. We need not decide
whether the district court erred, because any such error would be harmless. See
United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court lacked
discretion to sentence Lopez-Cupa below the statutory mandatory minimum.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --