Case ID: f-appx_562/html/0590-01.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. Oscar Alonso ROBLES-SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 13, 2014.
    Joseph S. Smith, Jr., Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Wendy Susan Gerboth, Law Office of Wendy Gerboth, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Alonso Robles-Salinas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Robles-Salinas contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). He argues that the court erred by (i) improperly considering his lack of candor with the probation officer, (ii) engaging in speculation about the type and amount of drugs involved in a prior smuggling venture, and (iii) giving undue consideration to the amount of drugs involved in the instant offense. Contrary to Robles-Salinas’s contention, the court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in making its minor role determination. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(C). Moreover, because Robles-Salinas failed - to prove that he was substantially less culpable than the average participant in the offense, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir.2011).

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