
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarisana Preciado CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013
    
    Filed March 22, 2013.
    Kyle Joseph Healey, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Andrea Lynn Matheson, Andrea L. Matheson, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Clarisana Preciado Cervantes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Preciado Cervantes contends that the district court erred by denying her relief under the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We review for clear error the district court’s determination that a defendant is ineligible for safety valve relief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2007). Contrary to Preciado Cervantes’s contention, the record here is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and it makes evident that the district court concluded that Pre-ciado Cervantes had not truthfully and fully provided the government with all of the information she had concerning the offense. This conclusion finds support in the record; accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in denying relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.1996).

In light of the fact that the court lacked discretion to sentence Preciado Cervantes below the statutory mandatory minimum, we do not reach her remaining contentions of error.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     