
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CASTRO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10137.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 14, 2014.
    Filed March 19, 2014.
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Francisco Leon, Esquire, Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Castro-Lopez was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(ii)(II), 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(l)(b)(ii), and received the minimum sentences required by statute. He appeals those sentences, arguing that he should have been sentenced under the “safety valve” provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and that the district court’s contrary conclusion relied on the fact of his prior juvenile adjudications, a fact that constitutionally should have been proven to a jury under United States v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187, 1194-95 (9th Cir.2001), and United States v. Washington, 462 F.3d 1124, 1141-42 (9th Cir.2006). Where, as here, Castro failed to object to the constitutionality of his sentence before the district court, we review for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Chavez, 611 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

Tighe, 266 F.3d at 1194-95, and Washington, 462 F.3d at 1141-42, require that the fact of a prior non jury juvenile adjudication be proven to a jury, or admitted by a defendant, only where Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny apply. United States v. Labrada- Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252, 1263 (9th Cir.2005), affirmed the constitutionality of the safety valve provision notwithstanding that provision’s reliance on judicial factfinding. If there is any tension between Labrada-Bustamante and Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) — which we do not decide — it does not represent the sort of “clearly irreconcilable” conflict that would allow us to overrule Labrada-Bustamante, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), on plain error review.

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