Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0390-01.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. Erick Humberto SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50132
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stacey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    
      Victor Nathaniel Pippins, Jr., Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erick Humberto Salazar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 97-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for importation of methamphetamine and conspiracy to import methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salazar contends that the district court erred by failing to analyze whether the facts he cited at sentencing entitled him to a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. This argument is not supported by the record, which reflects that the court considered Salazar’s arguments in favor of a minor role adjustment and concluded that he had not carried his burden of demonstrating that he was entitled to the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant bears burden of proving entitlement to a minor role adjustment). This finding was not clearly erroneous, despite counsel’s characterization of Salazar as solely a “courier,” in light of the facts to which Salazar admitted in his proffer, which were discussed at the sentencing hearing. See id. (whether a defendant is a minor participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error).

Salazar also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Salazar’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Several months after Salazar was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to section 3B 1.2(b). See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 521 (9th Cir. 2016). We are satisfied that the district court did not clearly err under the revised commentary, which applies retroactively. See id. at 523.