United States v. Teodoro Leon-Vargas

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50253 · 2014-05-22 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teodoro LEON-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Richard R. Clifton (author), Carlos T. Bea, Paul J. Watford

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50253 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-04970-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* TEODORO LEON-VARGAS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Teodoro Leon-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed following his 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). Leon-Vargas contends that the district court erred by considering the amount of drugs involved in the offense when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011) (relying in part on the quantity of drugs involved to affirm denial of minor role adjustment); see also Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010) (a three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50253