Rios-Araiza

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Roberto Carlos Rios-Araiza appeals from his sentence for conspiracy to import marijuana. The appellant asserts that the district court erred (1) in finding that the appellant did not qualify for the safety valve provision; (2) in not providing an evidentiary hearing; and (3) by applying the mandatory minimum sentence in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We affirm.

An appellate court reviews a district court’s factual determination that a defendant is not eligible for relief under the safety valve provision for clear error. United States v. Washman, 128 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir.1997). The burden of proof is on the defendant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, his qualification for safety valve relief. Id. However, this is only an initial burden and once the defendant has shown he is eligible, “it falls to the Government to show that the information he has supplied is untrue or incomplete.” United States v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir.1996). The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant had failed to truthfully provide all information regarding the…