USA v. Ines Tamayo-Lopez, No. 10-30221 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 11 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-30221 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00137-WFN v. MEMORANDUM * INES TAMAYO-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Ines Tamayo-Lopez appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (846). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291, and we affirm. Tamayo-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by determining that he was ineligible for safety valve relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Tamayo-Lopez did not truthfully provide all relevant information concerning the conduct for which he was sentenced. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). Tamayo-Lopez also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal characteristics and the disparate sentences imposed upon cooperating co-defendants. The record reflects that Tamayo-Lopez s bottom of the Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 10-30221

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.