United States v. Abraham De Los Santos-Sanchez

facts in the record indicate that the district court would likely have determined the

safety valve to be inapplicable even absent the Government’s sentencing

arguments. First, attached to the plea agreement were photographs of Santos-

Sanchez with a firearm in the marijuana fields. Second, the presentencing report

any arguments related to that threshold determination. Cf. United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 419 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting an argument that the government breached a plea agreement “by failing to object to the PSR’s” inclusion of an upward sentence adjustment because “[t]he plea agreement did not require the government to do so”). Nevertheless, we assume for our decision that the agreement is indeed ambiguous on this point.

3 reviewed by the court concluded that Santos-Sanchez did not qualify for the safety

valve because he was documented over video “touting [his] ability to protect the

grow with the rifles and handgun” and saying, “[t]his is so they know we are not

playing around.” Third, the court expressed at least a tentative view that Santos-

Sanchez’s wildlife-protection explanation—which was the only reason he gave for

why he was carrying a…