United States v. Llausas-Silva

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3549 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00135-SVW-2 v. MEMORANDUM* EDGAR LLAUSAS-SILVA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 15, 2025** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.*** Defendant-Appellant Edgar Llausas-Silva was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Llausas-Silva challenges his sentence on several different grounds.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and background of this case, we provide only the information necessary to give context to our ruling. After being arrested for his role in a drug transaction involving a large quantity of methamphetamine, Llausas-Silva eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Llausas-Silva sought relief from the minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to the statutory safety valve, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)—a request that the Government opposed on the grounds that Llausas-Silva had not been entirely truthful in his proffer. The district court ultimately agreed with the Government, concluding that Llausas-Silva was not eligible for safety-valve relief. It sentenced Llausas-Silva to 120 months of imprisonment, the minimum mandatory sentence.

It also sentenced Llausas-Silva to five years of supervised release and required him to comply with the standard discretionary conditions outlined in the district court’s Second Amended General Order 20-04.

Llausas-Silva raises four challenges to his sentence, none of which succeed.

First, Llausas-Silva argues that the district court erred in concluding that he was ineligible for safety-valve relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) because he had not been completely truthful. But we review the district court’s factual determination that a defendant has not been truthful only for clear error, and we “‘must accept the district court’s factual findings unless we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”’” United States v. Salazar, 61 F.4th 723, 726 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Lizarraga-Carrizales, 757 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2014)). Moreover, the district court may rely on reasonable inferences and its experience in determining whether a defendant has been entirely truthful. See United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 2012).

In the communications constituting his proffer, Llausas-Silva took the position that he was only a money courier and did not personally bring the methamphetamine to the drug transaction. The district court did not clearly err in determining that, in light of the message about the drug transaction received by Llausas-Silva and the particular circumstances of the transaction, Llausas-Silva’s representations were not entirely truthful. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Houston, 217 F.3d 1204, 1206– (9th Cir. 2000).

Second, Llausas-Silva argues that the district court improperly relied on provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that calculated his advisory

Third, Llausas-Silva argues that the district court violated his right to be present for the imposition of discretionary supervised-release provisions, relying on United States v. Montoya, 82 F.4th 640, 647 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc). But there was no Montoya error here. Llausas-Silva had advance notice of the discretionary conditions that he would be subject to based on the U.S. Probation Office’s sentencing recommendation letters and the district court’s Second Amended General Order 20-04. See id. at 652 (noting that a “courtwide . . . standing order[] that list[s] conditions” could suffice to put a defendant on notice

United States v. Garcia, 909 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.3, comment n.1). The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Vidana-Zavala’s carrying of the firearm was reasonably foreseeable. Where, as here, a defendant is a party to a large drug transaction, it is reasonably foreseeable that a codefendant may be carrying a firearm. See id. at 1349–50; see also United States v. Willis, 899 F.2d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[T]rafficking in narcotics is very often related to the carrying and use of firearms.” (quoting United States v. Ramos, 861 F.2d 228, 231 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988))). Moreover, as was the case with Llausas-Silva’s methamphetamine-purity argument, the precise Guidelines sentence is ultimately immaterial because Llausas-Silva was given the minimum mandatory sentence.

AFFIRMED.