USA v. Jose Alvarez-Lopez, No. 09-30352 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 05 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-30352 D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00113-EJL v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE LUIS ALVAREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Alvarez-Lopez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Alvarez-Lopez contends that the district court erred by failing to grant safety-valve relief, because: (1) the district court relied on a mistaken belief that he admitted to a role in the conspiracy beyond what was stated at the plea hearing; (2) there was substantial evidence of miscommunication between himself and the government, and (3) he was denied the opportunity to provide a truthful and complete statement. The district court did not clearly err by denying relief based on its conclusion that Alvarez-Lopez had not provided a completely truthful account regarding his role in the conspiracy despite the numerous opportunities he was given to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that a defendant s good faith obligation under § 3553(f) is satisfied by providing the government with truthful and complete information by the time of the sentencing hearing). AFFIRMED. 2 09-30352

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.