Case ID: f-appx_600/html/0584-01.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. Raul Flores WONG, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50195.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2015.
    
    Filed April 27, 2015.
    Jose Castillo, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeremy D. Warren, Warren & Burstein, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Flores Wong appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-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 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores Wong contends that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and for clear error the district court’s factual 'determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, - L.Ed.2d - (2015). Contrary to Flores Wong’s contention, the record reflects that the court properly considered his culpability relative to that of the average participant in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A). Further, to the extent Flores Wong contends that he is entitled to a minor role reduction, the district court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

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