United States v. Jacqueline Mosti
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacqueline MOSTI, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Joseph J. Farris (author), Richard A. Paez, Kim M. Wardlaw
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50121 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01785-L v. MEMORANDUM* JACQUELINE MOSTI, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jacqueline Mosti appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-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). Mosti contends that the district court erred in denying her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by applying the wrong burden of proof, misapplying the Guideline, and relying on improper considerations. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the district court understood and applied the correct legal standard and applicable burden of proof, properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper factors in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1223 (9th Cir.
2014). The record further supports the court’s conclusion that Mosti failed to carry her burden of establishing that she was entitled to the adjustment. See Rodriguez- Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50121