Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0446-01.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. Gustavo Adolfo PENUNURI-BADILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009 .
    Filed July 1, 2009.
    Nicolle Jacqueline Krivda, Esquire, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrea L. Matheson, Esquire, Andrea L. Matheson, Law Firm, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo Adolfo Penunuri-Badillo appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(ii), and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Penunuri-Badillo contends that the district court erred when it failed to apply a minimal role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), to his offense level calculation. We conclude that the district court did not err. See United States v. Webster, 996 F.2d 209, 212 n. 5 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991).

Penunuri-Badillo also contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for a downward departure based on imperfect duress, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12, and that his sentence is unreasonable. We review both contentions for reasonableness. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 760-61 (9th Cir.2008); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-93.

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