UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo LOPEZ-CUPA, Defendant-Appellant, 732 F.3d 1147

MEMORANDUM Rodolfo Lopez-Cupa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Lopez-Cupa contends that the district court erred by denying him relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination that a defendant is ineligible for safety valve relief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2007). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Lopez-Cupa did not truthfully provide the government all of the information he had regarding the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1144-45 (9th Cir.), cert denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 775, 184 L.Ed.2d 512 (2012). Because a defendant must meet all of the conditions set forth in

section 3553(

f) to be entitled to safety valve relief, see United States v. Alba-Flores, 577 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.2009), the district court properly denied Lopez-Cupa relief. Lopez-Cupa also contends that the district court erred in applying obstruction of justice and aggravating role adjustments. We need not decide whether the district court erred, because any such error would be harmless. See United States v. Ali 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir.2010). The district court lacked discretion to sentence Lopez-Cupa below the statutory mandatory minimum. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.