Espinoza

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Jose Espinoza, Victor Avalos and Antonio Ledesma appeal their sentences following convictions by guilty plea. All three defendants contend the district court erred in believing it lacked the discretion, post -Booker, to alter their criminal history calculation when determining eligibility for the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f). This argument is foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in United States v. Hernandez-Castro, 473 F.3d 1004, 1005 (9th Cir.2007).

Ledesma additionally challenges the district court’s rejection of his sentencing entrapment claim. The evidence suggests Ledesma was predisposed to deal in large quantities, as he told a confidential informant that he usually processed twelve pounds of methamphetamine a week. The record shows the government did nothing to encourage or coerce Ledesma into doing a larger deal, other than simply requesting a larger quantity of methamphetamine, which Ledesma readily agreed to provide. *547 Although the district court did not make explicit findings, the record is sufficiently clear that the court considered the relevant evidence and rejected Ledesma’s argument. 1 The record thus amply…