gno.law

United States v. Arturo Diaz-Romero

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50460 · 2017-01-18 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo DIAZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Marilyn L. Huff (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
Stephen S. Trott (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Atsushi W. Tashima

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2017

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50460 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01448-H v. MEMORANDUM* ARTURO DIAZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017 ** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Arturo Diaz-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-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). Diaz-Romero contends that remand for resentencing is required because the district court did not consider all of the factors enumerated in Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”) to the minor role Guideline when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Contrary to Diaz-Romero’s argument, the record reflects that the district court gave ample consideration to the Amendment; it was not required to “tick off” the factors enumerated in the Amendment to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court did not clearly err in finding, after considering the Amendment, that Diaz-Romero did not play a minor role in the offense. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50460

Cites, in this corpus