Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0263-01.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. Brenda Trinidad JAIME-SAINZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30248
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    Heather S. Patricco, Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Matthew G. Gunn, Attorney, Barnum Howell & Gunn PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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

Brenda Trinidad Jaime-Sainz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 210-month concurrent sentences imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,

Jaime-Sainz contends that the district court abdicated its responsibility to conduct an independent inquiry as to the extent of the downward departure she should receive for her substantial assistance to the government under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. To the contrary, the record reflects that the district court considered arguments from both parties and provided a reasoned basis for its acceptance of the government’s two-level downward departure recommendation. See United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 964 (9th Cir. 1999). The court did not err by giving weight to the government’s assessment of the value of Jaime-Sainz’s assistance. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a)(1) & cmt. n.3; Laney, 189 F.3d at 964.

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