MEMORANDUM **

Leobardo Olazabal Carranza appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carranza contends that the district court erred by denying him relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. He argues that the district court failed to give rea *601 sons for the denial, to make factual findings, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The district court’s reasons for denying safety valve relief are evident from the record, and it did not clearly err in determining that Carranza did not provide the government truthful and complete information regarding the offense. See United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the district court had enough information to make a reasoned decision and therefore did not plainly err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain error review applies when the defendant does not request an evidentiary hearing); United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir. 1996) (“There is no general right to an evidentiary hearing at sentencing.”).

AFFIRMED.