Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0499-01.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. Irvin Alejandro Torres GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Mark W. Pletcher, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David James Zugman, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Irvin Alejandro Torres Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Torres Guzman contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) and by misinterpreting the Guidelines. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual determination that a defendant is 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).

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Torres Guzman did not play a minor role in the offense, especially in light of the amount of drugs involved and the nature and extent of Torres Guzman’s involvement with the drug trafficking organization. See id., 760 F.3d at 1069. Furthermore, contrary to Torres Guzman’s contention, the district court did not misinterpret the Guidelines.

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