in this case was fatal to the conviction of Hernandez for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it, and that conviction cannot stand. On the other hand, the failure to give the lesser included offense instruction did not affect in any way the conviction of Hernandez for importation of more than fifty grams of methamphetamine, and that conviction stands. IV Finally, we address Hernandez’s arguments attacking his sentence and the sentencing safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005). Hernandez presents 933, 935-36 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Henley, 502 F.2d 585, 586
holding that possession of more than thirtyfive pounds of cocaine valued at between 5 and 7 million ruled out a simple possession jury instruction holding that possession of the equivalent of 279 pounds of marijuana valued at 279000 dollars justified the district courts refusal to provide a lesser included instruction holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell holding that possession of more than seven tons of marijuana justified the district courts refusal to provide a simple possession instruction