gno.law

United States v. Juan Cota-Chavez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50407 · 2015-09-01 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Muanuel COTA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Mary M. McKeown (author), Richard R. Clifton, Andrew D. Hurwitz

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50407 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00031-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN MUANUEL COTA-CHAVEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Juan Muanuel Cota-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, 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). Cota-Chavez contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by (i) failing to compare his culpability to that of others involved in the offense, (ii) failing to consider his limited knowledge about the smuggling operation, and (iii) relying on improper factors. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and for clear error its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant.

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, 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. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2014), cert.

denied, 135 S. Ct. 1467 (2015). The record further supports the court’s conclusion that Cota-Chavez failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was entitled to the adjustment. See Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50407

Cites, in this corpus