Case ID: f-appx_674/html/0761-01.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. Danielle Trinitti KOWNACKI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50503
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    John David Kirby, Attorney, Law Office of John D. Kirby, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Danielle Trinitti Kownacki appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 63-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kownacki argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err in finding, based on Kownacki’s level of involvement in the drug trafficking scheme and the remuneration she received, that she was not “substantially less culpable” than the average participant in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Kownacki’s contention, a different result is not required under the factors enumerated in Amendment 794 to the minor role Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015), which was in effect at the time of Kownacki’s sentencing and discussed at the sentencing hearing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.