United States v. Juan Guzman

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50207 · 2010-03-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Gould, Smith

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50207 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03543-LAB v. JUAN CARLOS GUZMAN, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Guzman appeals from the 75-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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and * 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).

JC/Research we affirm.

Guzman contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Guzman failed to carry his burden of proving that he is entitled to such an adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). Among other things, Guzman knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000), and planned on accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment.

See Cantrell, 433 F.3d at 1283-84 (holding that district court’s decision regarding defendant’s minor role status was not clearly erroneous); United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that district court need not accept the government’s recommendation of a minor role reduction).

AFFIRMED.

JC/Research 2 09-50207