Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0686-01.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. Jose HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50148
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 01, 2016
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph M. McMullen, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph M. McMullen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-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.

Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on clearly erroneous facts in sentencing. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Specifically, he argues that the government misrepresented his actions leading up to the offense and that the misrepresentation may have caused the district court to deny his request for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record does not support this contention. Although the government erroneously stated that Hernandez had admitted to smuggling suspicious packages into the United States on prior occasions, defense counsel corrected the misrepresentation during the hearing. Moreover, the record reflects that the district court’s minor-role decision was based on the steps Hernandez took to prepare for the offense, rather than the government’s misrepresentation.

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