Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0992-01.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. Tanya Marie MORREO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50170
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Alexandra Fairbanks Foster, Janaki Gandhi, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Ellis M. Johnston, III, Esquire, Trial Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tanya Marie Morreo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morreo contends that the district court’s mitigating role analysis was legally flawed and resulted in the erroneous denial of her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Morreo’s contention, the record demonstrates that the district court properly compared her to her co-participants in the offense and considered the factors enumerated in the Guideline and the totality of the circumstances to determine whether Morreo was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district judges are presumed to know the law and need not “tick' off’ all of the sentencing factors). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of the offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Morreo was not a minor participant. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 (the. court may consider factors other than those included in the commentary to the Guideline and may deny a reduction even if some of the factors support a contrary result).

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