United States v. Adan Suastegui, 513 F. App'x 637

Appellant Adan Gomez Suastegui pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which carries a 120-month mandatory minimum.
Appellant challenged the district court’s denial of safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) on the ground that he did not satisfy the second criterion about firearm possession.
Police observed Appellant or co-defendant Avalos carrying a shotgun near the campsite during surveillance, and Appellant later admitted carrying and loading the firearm; gun was found at arrest.
The district court found Appellant possessed a firearm in connection with the offense, thus denying safety valve relief and applying a two-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
The district court calculated Appellant’s offense level with the firearm enhancement, yielding a 120-month mandatory minimum despite a possible safety-valve path for Avalos.
The oral sentence required one drug test within 15 days of release; the written judgment added multiple tests and required payment for drug rehabilitation, prompting remand to conform to the oral pronouncement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Suastegui qualified for safety valve relief from the mandatory minimum.	Suastegui argues he satisfied § 3553(f) criteria, including lack of firearm connection.	The government contends the district court correctly found he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense, disqualifying safety valve relief.	No clear error; safety valve denied because firearm possession connected to the offense.
Whether the firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) was proper.	The enhancement should apply only if not clearly improbable the weapon connected to the offense.	The district court reasonably found a firearm connected to the offense.	The enhancement applied; district court did not clearly err.
Whether the written judgment conformed to the oral pronouncement on drug testing and rehabilitation.	Oral sentence required one test within 15 days; written judgment added multiple tests and rehabilitation payment.	Written judgment should reflect the oral sentence, but there is some ambiguity in applicability of testing and rehabilitation requirements.	Remand to conform written judgment to oral sentence and strike drug-rehabilitation payment.

United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for safety valve factual review)
United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring the five criteria of § 3553(f) by preponderance)
United States v. Kelso, 942 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for determining firearm connection to the offense)
United States v. Fu Sheng Kuo, 620 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (oral sentence controls when different from written judgment)
United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (remand to conform written judgment to oral pronouncement)