United States v. Guadalupe Gonzalez-Alvarado
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe GONZALEZ-ALVARADO, 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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2010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. 09-50145 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-CR-02466-JM v. MEMORANDUM * GUADALUPE GONZALEZ- ALVARADO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Guadalupe Gonzalez-Alvarado appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to * 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).
EG/Research distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez-Alvarado contends that the district court erred in determining that she was ineligible for the minor participant role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gonzalez- Alvarado had not met her burden of proof of establishing that she was substantially less culpable than co-participants in the smuggling scheme. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). Contrary to Gonzalez- Alvarado’s contention, the district court’s findings encompassed the required comparison of Gonzalez-Alvarado with co-participants in the scheme.
Gonzalez-Alvarado further contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and discuss the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence when it placed greater weight on the serious nature of the offense than on the other § 3553(a) factors. Our review of the record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Considering the totality of the EG/Research 2 09-50145 circumstances, the district court’s sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
EG/Research 3 09-50145