Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0463-01.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. Javier Toshiro TOKUNAGA-FUJIGAKI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50466.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    Emily Keifer, Assistant U.S., Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: MeKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Toshiro Tokunaga-Fujigaki appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tokunaga-Fujigaki contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by misapplying the Guideline. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, 191 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015). Contrary to Tokunagar-Fujigaki’s contention, the record reflects that the district eourt understood and applied the correct legal standard, properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper factors in denying the adjustment. Moreover, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Tokunaga-Fujigaki did not play a minor role in the offense. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

Tokunaga-Fujigaki also contends that his supervised release term is substantively unreasonable in light of his status as a deportable alien. The district eourt did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tokunaga-Fujigaki’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Tokunaga-Fuji-gaki’s recent arrest for a similar offense. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5 (supervised release for a deportable alien is appropriate if it would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection)

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).