United States v. Edgardo Castaneda , 462 F. App'x 757 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2011
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. 10-50432
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00826-GW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
EDGARDO PRADO CASTANEDA,
AKA Primo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Edgardo Prado Castaneda appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review de novo the district court’s
interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines and review its factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 360 (9th
Cir. 1996). We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Castaneda contends that the district court erred by failing to provide reasons
for denying safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the district court
must disregard the statutory minimum sentence if it finds at sentencing that the
defendant meets the five criteria for safety-valve relief. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d
at 360–62. The court must provide a sufficient record to allow “meaningful
appellate review” and, at the time of sentencing, must provide its reasons for
applying or declining to apply safety-valve relief. Id. at 360.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court found Castaneda ineligible for
safety-valve relief, but the record does not indicate the basis for that determination.
The court appears to have declined to decide whether Castaneda had a leadership
role in the offense for purposes of § 3553(f)(4). Though the government indicated
that it also disputed Castaneda’s eligibility for relief under § 3553(f)(2) and (5), the
court did not address those criteria. Instead, the court merely stated its belief that
the government was correct regarding Castaneda’s ineligibility for relief. This is
2
an insufficient record for appellate review. See Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d at 360;
see also United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2002).
Castaneda’s motion for an extension of time to file his reply brief is granted.
The brief submitted on November 3, 2011, is deemed filed.
The sentence of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for
resentencing.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
3