Parker

MEMORANDUM **

Lionel Koia Parker challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by holding him responsible for a quantity a drugs greater than charged in his indictment and by refusing to grant a “safety valve” reduction. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

1. Quantity of Drugs

Parker was sentenced based on a quantity of drugs seized from his codefendants who stated that they were instructed to deliver the drugs to Parker. The court found the statements “corroborate and establish” that the quantity of drugs seized “was intended for delivery to the defendant.” This evidence is sufficient to hold Parker accountable for the drugs. See United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761, 766 (9th Cir.1991). Nothing in the record supports Parker’s claim that the district court impermissibly based its sentence on his refusal to testify or present evidence at sentencing.

We reject Parker’s claim that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The district court’s finding regarding drug quantity did not expose him to a sentence greater than the “prescribed statutory maximum.” See United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th…