United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Bernardo Acosta-dominguez, Defendant-appellant, 132 F.3d 40 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Bernardo Acosta-Dominguez appeals his 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) (1) (C), 846). Acosta-Dominguez contends that the district court erroneously calculated his sentence based on 500 pounds of marijuana. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court's findings of fact underlying the sentencing decision, see United States v. Parrilla, 114 F.3d 124, 126 (9th Cir. 1997), and affirm.

Acosta-Dominguez contends that the district court failed to state its reasons for imposition of his sentence. We disagree. The district court stated that the amount of marijuana contemplated by the conspiracy was 500 pounds based on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) and the production of money at the time of the transaction. These statements provided sufficient reasons for imposing Acosta-Dominguez's sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); see also U.S. v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir. 1990).

Acosta-Dominguez also contends that he cannot be held responsible for 500 pounds of marijuana because (1) he could not conspire with a government agent, and (2) to the extent other members of the conspiracy possessed 500 pounds of marijuana, Acosta-Dominguez could not reasonably foresee this amount. This contention is meritless because the district court did not clearly err by finding that the scope of the entire conspiracy involved 500 pounds of marijuana and was attributable to Acosta-Dominguez. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) (1995); see also U.S. v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 532 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.