Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0487-01.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. David BARRERA-VALDIVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50070
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kristi A. Hughes, Bridget Lynn Kennedy, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Barrera-Valdivia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barrera-Valdivia contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the factors enumerated in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and explain why he was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under those factors. The record reflects that the court considered Barrera-Valdivia’s sentencing arguments concerning the five Guideline factors, and asked questions regarding those arguments. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the court considered the Guideline factors and their application to this case. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir, 2008). Moreover, the court’s reasons for denying a minor role adjustment are apparent from the record. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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