Case ID: f-appx_591/html/0562-01.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. Fortino ELENES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50156.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2015.
    Stacey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sara Marie Peloquin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego,'Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fortino Elenes, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-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.

Elenes contends that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying his request for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and improperly concluded that he' was not entitled to the adjustment. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines and for clear error the district court’s factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014). Contrary to Elenes’s contention, the record reflects that the court properly considered his culpability relative to that of the average participant. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A). Further, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Elenes failed to prove that he was entitled to the adjustment. See id. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(C); Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

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