gno.law

United States v. Candelario Gonzalez-Garcia

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50250 · 2015-06-25 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario GONZALEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
James S. Hawkins (author), Fletcher, 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2015

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50250 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00021-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* CANDELARIO GONZALEZ-GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Candelario Gonzalez-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-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). Gonzalez-Garcia contends that the district court legally erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court erred by (i) comparing him to the hypothetical average importer of narcotics, rather than to other likely participants in the instant offense; (ii) limiting its analysis to the offense of conviction, rather than the larger criminal scheme; and (iii) requiring clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to the adjustment.

We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.

1467 (2015). Any error in this case was harmless. The court ultimately denied the adjustment based on proper considerations. See id. at 1069 (affirming denial of minor role where appellant was paid to smuggle a significant amount of drugs across the border in a truck that was registered in his name). Moreover, Gonzalez- Garcia’s sentence is within the Guidelines range that would have applied had the district court determined that he was eligible for the minor role adjustment. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50250

Cites, in this corpus