gno.law

United States v. Juan Perez-Sanchez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-50091 · 2017-02-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Javier PEREZ-SANCHEZ, 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
Joseph J. Farris (author), Alfred T. Goodwin, Ferdinand F. Fernandez

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50091 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02783-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN JAVIER PEREZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Juan Javier Perez-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-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). Perez-Sanchez contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard to his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and erred in denying the reduction. We review the district 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). Contrary to Perez-Sanchez’s claim, the district court properly compared Perez-Sanchez to his co-participants in the offense, and considered the factors enumerated in the Guideline and the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether Perez-Sanchez was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C) (2015); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of the offense, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Perez-Sanchez was not a minor participant. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Perez-Sanchez to a below-Guidelines term. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large amount of drugs that Perez-Sanchez imported. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50091

Cites, in this corpus