United States v. Laura Trejo-Macias
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laura Elena TREJO-MACIAS, A.K.A. Laura Trejo De Alatorre, A.K.A. Laura Trejo-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Harry Pregerson (author), Fletcher, Stephen R. Reinhardt
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50262 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01655-H v. MEMORANDUM* LAURA ELENA TREJO-MACIAS, a.k.a. Laura Trejo De Alatorre, a.k.a. Laura Trejo-Rodriguez, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2013** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Laura Elena Trejo-Macias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 151-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for * 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). 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.
Trejo-Macias contends that the district court failed to make the requisite perjury findings to support the imposition of a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Trejo-Macias never objected to the enhancement in the district court and, in fact, filed sentencing summary charts prior to and at the sentencing hearing that included the obstruction of justice enhancement. Therefore, the district court’s duty to make findings on materiality, falsity and willfulness was never triggered. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94-95 (1993); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir.
2000).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50262