Case ID: f-appx_305/html/0439-01.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. Rafael AYALA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-50065.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
    Caleb Edward Mason, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vincent James Brunkow, Esquire, Assistant Appellate Supervisor, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Ayala appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ayala contends that the district court erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because it misinterpreted the Guidelines and improperly concluded that a courier convicted of importing drugs cannot qualify for a minor role reduction. We conclude that the district court did not misinterpret the Guidelines and did not clearly err in declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Rosales-Rodriguez, 289 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1994).

Ayala further contends that the sentence imposed was unreasonable because the district court relied on erroneous facts and imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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