Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0535-01.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. Miguel A. SAMANO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-30525.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 10, 2007 .
    Filed Aug. 2, 2007.
    Stephen F. Peifer, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Thomas E. Price, Esq., Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Angel Samano (“Samano”) pled guilty to one count of possession of 500 or more grams of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(l)(A)(viii). We affirm the conviction and the sentence. First, the district court satisfied Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(G) by discussing each element of the charge and the government’s burden of proof during the plea colloquy. See United States v. Portillo-Cano, 192 F.3d 1246, 1252 (9th Cir.1999). Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not reducing the sentence even further for diminished mental capacity. Samano has not shown that his naivete contributed substantially to the commission of the offense or that his overall sentence is unreasonable. Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not further reducing his sentence on the basis of Samano’s allegedly minor role in the crime. “Where drugs are present in significant quantities, that is in itself sufficient to deny a sentencing reduction.” United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005).

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