
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis ALVAREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
    Aaron Nicholas Lucoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ronald Dean Christian, Ron Christian, Attorney at Law, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Alvarez-Lopez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alvarez-Lopez contends that the district court erred by failing to grant safety-valve relief, because: (1) the district court relied on a mistaken belief that he admitted to a role in the conspiracy beyond what was stated at the plea hearing; (2) there was substantial evidence of miscommunication between himself and the government, and (3) he was denied the opportunity to provide a truthful and complete statement. The district court did not clearly err by denying relief based on its conclusion that Alvarez-Lopez had not provided a completely truthful account regarding his role in the conspiracy despite the numerous opportunities he was given to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Mejiar-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that a defendant’s good faith obligation under § 3553(f) is satisfied by providing the government with truthful and complete information by the time of the sentencing hearing).

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