Medina

MEMORANDUM *

Alejandro Quiñones Medina appeals from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and two counts of distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1).

The district court correctly rejected Medina’s claim of sentencing entrapment, a defense intended to ensure that defendants are not prosecuted for a drug offense of greater magnitude than the defendant was predisposed to commit. See United States v. Staufer, 38 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.1994). The defendant bears the burden of showing sentencing entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245 , 250 & n. 13 (9th Cir.1995). Here there was no evidence of entrapment beyond the defendant’s conclusory declaration. The specific transcripts produced involving two of the three drug deals indicate defendant’s predisposition to commit the crimes and fail to reflect any unwillingness whatsoever. Cf. id. at 251 (noting agents had to persuade defendant to go through with…