Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0721-01.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. Carlos ALBERTO MADERO-HIGUERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50073.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 26, 2014.
    Timothy D. Coughlin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald Alan Nunn, Esquire, Poway, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. 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

Carlos Alberto Madero-Higuera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Madero-Higuera contends that the district court erred by failing to exercise its independent judgment in denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record does not support this contention. The district court considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that the record did not provide a basis for finding that Madero-Higuera played a minor role in the criminal scheme. The court’s rejection of the adjustment was consistent with the guideline and our precedent. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A) (adjustment available only if defendant is “substantially less culpable than the average participant”); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011) (defendant’s burden to establish his entitlement to the adjustment).

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