United States v. Erick Aguilar-Espinoza
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erick AGUILAR-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50282 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00141-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * ERICK AGUILAR-ESPINOZA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Erick Aguilar-Espinoza appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Aguilar-Espinoza contends that the district court erred in denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not clearly err in determining that Aguilar-Espinoza failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was “substantially less culpable” than his uncharged co-conspirator. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n. 3(A); United States v. Awad, 371 F.3d 583, 591 (9th Cir.
2004) (defendant bears the burden on entitlement to adjustment); United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (denial of a minor role adjustment not clear error where the defendant was the sole driver and occupant of a car in which a substantial amount of drugs were hidden).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50282