NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30148
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00004-SPW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OMAR COTA, a.k.a. Omar Cota-Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Omar Cota appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841 and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cota contends that the district court clearly erred in determining the amount
of drugs involved in his offense. He argues that the court relied upon facts that did
not have sufficient indicia of reliability, and did not err on the side of caution in
performing its calculation, as it was required to do. We review the court’s factual
finding regarding drug quantity for clear error. See United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 760 (9th Cir. 2008).
The district court did not clearly err. The court based its approximation on
reliable evidence, including the total quantity of methamphetamine seized and the
investigating officer’s testimony at the sentencing hearing. Contrary to Cota’s
argument, the district court did not err in relying on his co-conspirator’s hearsay
statement because other evidence corroborated that statement. See United States v.
Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may rely on hearsay at
sentencing as long as it is supported by “some minimal indicia of reliability”
(internal quotations omitted)). Moreover, the district court exercised an
appropriate degree of caution because Cota failed to present any supporting
evidence for his proposed drug quantity approximation and the evidence suggested
an even larger quantity than that found by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-30148