Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0660-01.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. Homar RENOVA-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 17, 2014.
    Brendan Patrick McCarthy, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark S. Werner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, Jessica L. Welt-man, Esquire, Federal Defender Research, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Homar Renova-Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Renova-Castillo contends that the district court erred when it determined the quantity of methamphetamine for purposes of establishing his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the court should have calculated a lesser amount because he possessed some of the methamphetamine for personal use and not with the intent to distribute. We review the district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error. See United States v. Asagba, 77 F.3d 324, 325 (9th Cir.1996). The record reflects that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Renova-Castillo conspired to possess with the intent to distribute at least 1.8 kilograms of methamphetamine.

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