Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0560-01.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. Julian JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50317
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Frederick Miller, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sarah Marie Gorman, Trial Attorney, Law Offices of Sarah M. Gorman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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

Julian Juarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Juarez contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court did not adequately consider all of the factors contained in the commentary to the Guideline, and failed to compare him to all of his co-participants in the offense. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that Juarez’s claims fail. The record reflects that the court invited comment at the sentencing hearing on each of the five factors and properly considered those factors, as well as the totality of the circumstances, before concluding that Juarez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Moreover, the court compared Juarez to his named co-participants in the offense and considered other possible participants in the overall scheme. Finally, contrary to Juarez’s claim, the court did not apply this court’s precedent in a way that conflicts with the minor role Guideline. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 (because the five factors are non-exhaustive, “a district court may also consider other reasons for granting or denying a minor role reduction”).

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