gno.law

United States v. Luis Santillan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50164 · 2015-04-30 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Jay S. Bybee, Morgan Christen

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50164 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04128-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS SANTILLAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Santillan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine and 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). Santillan contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.

Ct. 1467 (2015). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Santillan’s transportation of a substantial amount of cocaine and methamphetamine, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Santillan was not entitled to the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50164

Cites, in this corpus