Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0663-01.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. Arturo DIAZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50460
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Charlotte E. Kaiser, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
    Robert H. Rexrode, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Diaz-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his 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.

Diaz-Romero contends that remand for resentencing is required because the district court did not consider all of the factors enumerated in Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”) to the minor role Guideline when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Contrary to Diaz-Romero’s argument, the record reflects that the district court gave ample consideration to the Amendment; it was not required to “tick off’ the factors enumerated in the Amendment to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court did not clearly err in finding, after considering the Amendment, that Diaz-Romero did not play a minor role in the offense. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016).

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