Case ID: f-appx_291/html/0855-02.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. Jesus Antonio BORBOA-BUSTAMANTE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-10442.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 10, 2008.
    Bradley Giles, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Jeffrey G. Buchella, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Antonio Borboa-Bustamante appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately 292 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and § 846, and possession with intent to distribute approximately 292 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Borboa-Bustamante contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not abuse its discretion, given Borboa-Bustamante’s conduct, the circumstances of his arrest, and the amount he was paid for his services. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994).

Borboa-Bustamante also contends that the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable, provided an inadequate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis, and failed to consider his departure arguments. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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