
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgardo Prado CASTANEDA, a.k.a. Primo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2013.
    Shawn Jeffery Nelson, Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgardo Prado Castaneda appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Prado Castaneda contends that the district court erred when it denied him safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(4), on the ground that he was an “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense.” We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination that a particular defendant is ineligible for relief under the safety valve. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2007). The district court did not clearly err because Prado Castaneda “orchestrated the transaction” when he arranged the meeting with the confidential informant and directed his co-conspirator to bring four ounces of methamphetamine to the meeting. See United States v. Nobari, 574 F.3d 1065, 1084 (9th Cir.2009).

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