Ravandi

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Behrouz Ravandi (“Ravandi”) appeals his conviction of attempted possession of 3.299 kilograms of opium with an intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1), and his 63-month sentence.

Ravandi argues that the district court erred by (1) not giving adequate jury instructions as to his theory of the case; (2) not finding that he was eligible for “safety valve” relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f)(5); and (3) not holding an evidentiary hearing on the application of the “safety valve” provisions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.

I. Jury Instructions

“A defendant is entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on his theory of defense, provided that it is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence.” See e.g., United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990). With respect to whether the instruction is supported by law—whether the substance of the instruction itself is correct and whether the other jury instructions adequately cover the defense theory of the case—this court’s review is de novo. See United States v. Gomez-Osorio, 957 F.2d 636, 642 (9th…