United States v. Steven Montano
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Roger T. Benitez (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Atsushi W. Tashima (author), Smith, Barry G. Silverman
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50098 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03169-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Steven Montano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Montano argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We decline to reach this claim because any error was harmless. Although the district court denied the parties’ request for a minor role reduction, it imposed a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range that applied with a minor role reduction, as urged by the government. Furthermore, the court explained that, even if it had granted a minor role reduction and started its sentencing analysis with a lower Guidelines range, it would have imposed a sentence of 41 months in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, particularly the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Under these circumstances, we conclude that any error in failing to grant the minor role reduction requested by Montano was harmless. See United States v. Munoz- Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless error may result where the district judge “acknowledges that the correct Guidelines range is in dispute and performs his analysis twice, beginning with both the correct and incorrect range”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50098