
    UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renee GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30086.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2014.
    Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S., USSP — Office Of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard David Wall, Richard D. Wall, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Renee Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for drug crimes involving methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 856, and 860. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez challenges the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and we review for clear error its factual 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 Gomez’s contention, the district court made its own determination, separate from the jury’s finding of guilt, that Gomez’s safety-valve statement was not truthful. See United States v. Sherpa, 110 F.3d 656, 662 (9th Cir.1996). Furthermore, the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1144-45 (9th Cir.) (upholding denial of safety-valve relief where the defendant denied knowing anything about a marijuana growing operation, but evidence in the record suggested otherwise), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 775, 184 L.Ed.2d 512 (2012). Therefore, Gomez is not entitled to relief from the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

Gomez’s motion to take judicial notice is denied.

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