Durazo

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Jesus Gustavo Durazo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, methamphetamine. On appeal he challenges (1) the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and (2) the court’s finding that he was ineligible for the “safety valve” provisions of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f).

1. We lack jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s argument concerning the motion to suppress, because on this record his guilty plea was unconditional. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) (establishing procedure for conditional guilty plea to reserve in writing, with consent of the government, right to appeal adverse determination of specified pretrial motion); United States v. Floyd, 108 F.3d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that ruling on motion to suppress is not reviewable on appeal unless preserved under Rule 11(a)(2)). It is clear from the record that Defendant knowingly and intelligently entered the unconditional guilty plea.

2. The district court found that Defendant had not truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence that he had about the conspiracy. We review for clear error a…