United States of America v. Antonio Sanchez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50550
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00330-JAK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017 **
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; distribution and possession with intent to distribute
FILED
JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

methamphetamine, aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sanchez contends that the district court erred by failing to consider evidence
of derivative entrapment and its resulting sentencing entrapment as a mitigating
factor to forego imposition of the five-year sentence for his section 924(c)
conviction. We disagree. Sanchez’s guilty plea waived any entrapment defense to
his conviction. See United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th
Cir. 2005). Further, having suffered that conviction, Sanchez was subject to its
mandatory five-year consecutive sentence, and the district court had no authority to
depart below it. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d
1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantial assistance and safety valve are the only
grounds for imposing a sentence below a mandatory minimum).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --