Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0448-01.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. Sean Douglas MARCHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50088.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 16, 2015.
    Michael F. Kaplan, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sean Douglas Marchan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-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.

Marchan contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by misapplying the Guideline and relying on improper considerations. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.2011). The record reflects that the district court understood and applied the correct legal standard, properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper factors in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A), (C); United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1467, — L.Ed.2d-, 2015 WL 732229 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2015). The record further supports the court’s conclusion that Marchan failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was entitled to the adjustment. See Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.

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