gno.law

United States v. Eric Bautista

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50489 · 2017-02-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Dana M. Sabraw (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
civil
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017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. 15-50489 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01613-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant.

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

Eric Bautista appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of heroin and 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). Bautista contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the revised commentary when considering his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016). The record reflects that Bautista’s counsel discussed the five factors enumerated in the commentary during the sentencing hearing and, contrary to Bautista’s suggestion, the district court was not required to “tick off” these factors, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), nor was it required to weigh the factors in a particular manner, see Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50489

Cites, in this corpus