Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0601-01.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. Josephine Cardines GALOPE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10567.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
    Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter C. Perez, Esq., David J. Lujan, Esq., Anthony C. Perez, Esq., Lujan, Aguigui & Perez, LLP, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, 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

Josephine Cardines Galope appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed by the district court after she pled guilty to importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We disagree with Galope’s challenge to the obstruction of justice enhancement, because her admitted he to law enforcement officers obstructed their ability to further investigate any other participants in Gal-ope’s drug importation offense. See United States v. Ancheta, 38 F.3d 1114, 1118—19 (9th Cir.1994).

Galope also contends that she was entitled to a mitigating role adjustment. We conclude that Galope has not met her burden of proof, and that the district court did not clearly err by declining to impose this adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir.2006).

We further conclude that the district court did not clearly err by adopting the facts set forth in the presentence report. See id. at 1279.

We decline to address Galope’s contention that the district court relied upon materially false or unreliable evidence, because she did not object to the district court’s use of this evidence at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Smith, 905 F.2d 1296, 1302 (9th Cir.1990).

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