Case ID: f-appx_405/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Violeta CERVERA-LORNA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50569.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 13, 2010.
    Sherri Walker Hobson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lynn Howard Ball, Law Office of Lynn H. Ball, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Violeta Cervera-Lorna appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed following her 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.

Cervera-Lorna contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err by denying Cervera-Lorna’s request for a downward adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000) (the fact that a defendant acted as a courier does not mean his role was minor).

Cervera-Lorna also contends that the district court’s denial of a minor role adjustment created a drastic sentencing disparity between her and similarly situated defendants. This argument is unpersuasive. In any event, the record reflects that the district court specifically granted a downward variance in order to avoid sentencing disparities with similarly situated defendants, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

The government’s request to strike opposing counsel’s declaration is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.