gno.law

United States v. Teodoro Rivera-Guevara

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50510 · 2016-12-22 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teodoro RIVERA-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
William T. Wallace (author), Raymond C. Fisher, Edward Leavy

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2016

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50510 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01690-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* TEODORO RIVERA-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Teodoro Rivera-Guevara appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 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 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). Rivera-Guevara contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court properly compared Rivera- Guevara’s culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir.

2000). Moreover, the district court properly considered Rivera-Guevara’s arguments and the factors listed in the Guidelines’ revised commentary in finding that Rivera-Guevara’s role in the offense was not minor, based on the totality of the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). That finding was not clearly erroneous in light of Rivera-Guevara’s importing a substantial quantity of methamphetamine into this country using his own vehicle, and his work as a drug courier on two previous occasions. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50510

Cites, in this corpus