Case ID: f-appx_438/html/0613-01.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. Priscilla Marilyn FINAU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30232.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 20, 2011.
    Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jane Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Priscilla Marilyn Finau appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A) & (B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Finau contends that the district court erred in denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. On appeal, Finau argues for the first time that her role should have been compared to hypothetical other “likely participants” in the conspiracy, rather than just to the role of her co-defendant. Even if this argument were not waived, Finau’s speculation about other possible participants, without providing any evidentiary support, fails to meet her burden of proving that she is entitled to a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2010).

Finau also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence, six months below the bottom of the Guidelines range, is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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