United States v. Salvador Navarro , 512 F. App'x 729 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50522
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02805-MMA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SALVADOR NAVARRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Navarro appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Navarro challenges the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief from the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence. We review the district court’s
interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) de novo, and we review its factual
determination of safety-valve eligibility for clear error. See United States v. Mejia-
Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007).
Navarro contends that the district court applied an improper standard in
determining his safety-valve eligibility. The record reflects that the district court
applied the proper legal standard. See id. at 1106-07.
Contrary to Navarro’s contention, the whereabouts of a load vehicle less
than one month before it was used to import methamphetamine was relevant to
Navarro’s offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Miller, 151 F.3d
957, 958 (9th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court did
not clearly err in finding that Navarro never provided truthful and complete
information about his vehicle’s whereabouts. We decline to reach Navarro’s
argument that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32(i)(3) because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief. See United States
v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 614 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50522