Valmer

MEMORANDUM **

On at least six separate occasions, Appellant, Randy Valmer (‘Valmer”) sold methamphetamine to an undercover officer who was initially introduced to Valmer by a confidential informant (“Cl”) known only as “James.” 1 On September 30, 2005, a jury convicted Valmer on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and six counts of distribution of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Valmer to twenty years on each count and ordered that the sentences run concurrently-

Valmer appeals his conviction and seeks a new trial claiming the lower court erred in not ordering the Government to disclose information about the Cl, while at the same time allowing the Government to highlight the absence of information about the Cl during closing statement. Valmer also seeks to be resentenced based upon his contention the district court should have reduced his sentence as a result of (1) improper sentencing factor manipulation and (2) his acceptance of responsibility.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and we affirm.

Valmer’s Request for a New Trial

(1) Valmer’s Motion to Compel Discovery of the Cl was Properly Denied

The…

dissenting:

An entrapment defense is usually tough to sell to a jury, particularly when the defendant has sold drugs to an undercover detective on seven separate occasions, and when the defendant doesn’t know the last name of the person who allegedly had so much influence over him so as to be able to get him to commit a crime he was not predisposed to commit. That was the predicament of defendant Randy Valmer in this case, and so Valmer may well have deserved the guilty verdict he received.

Valmer is still entitled to defend himself by arguing entrapment, though, and in this case it appears to me both that he was denied relevant information to which he was entitled and that the Government took unfair advantage of that during its closing argument. I thus respectfully dissent.

The heart of my disagreement with the majority centers on its appraisal of the second of the three factors we identified in United States v. Gonzalo Beltran, 915 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1990), for deciding whether to disclose information regarding a confidential informant (“Cl”): “the relationship between the defendant’s asserted defense and the likely testimony of the informant.” When Valmer first sought…