Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0656-01.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. Rubi Roxana MARTINEZ-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10633.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 17, 2014.
    Sandra Marie Hansen, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    George Herman Soltero, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rubi Roxana Martinez-Soto challenges the 48-month, below-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Soto claims that the district court applied the wrong legal standard to her request for a -minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Our review is de novo. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014). The district court properly compared Martinez-Soto’s culpability to that of the average participants in the overall drug trafficking scheme in which she was involved. See id. at 1068-69.

Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Martinez-Soto’s role in the drug trafficking scheme was not minor, given that she was paid by the traffickers to import a substantial quantity of pure methamphetaniine into this country, and had also worked as a drug courier for them two days before her arrest. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir.2011).

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