United States v. Violeta Cervera-Lorna

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50569 · 2010-12-13 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Violeta CERVERA-LORNA, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Pamela A. Rymer, Susan Graber

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50569 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01605-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * VIOLETA CERVERA-LORNA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Violeta Cervera-Lorna appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cervera-Lorna contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err by denying Cervera-Lorna’s request for a downward adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2006);

see also United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (the fact that a defendant acted as a courier does not mean his role was minor).

Cervera-Lorna also contends that the district court’s denial of a minor role adjustment created a drastic sentencing disparity between her and similarly situated defendants. This argument is unpersuasive. In any event, the record reflects that the district court specifically granted a downward variance in order to avoid sentencing disparities with similarly situated defendants, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

The government’s request to strike opposing counsel’s declaration is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50569