Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0549-01.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. David PEREZ-MONTERO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-50413.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 4, 2011.
    
    Filed June 8, 2011.
    Anne Kristina Perry, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant>-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Perez-Montero (“Perez”) appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to importing 6.85 kilograms of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We affirm.

Judge Burns’ expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s practice of offering minor-role adjustments during plea negotiations was not the basis for the sentence imposed. Instead, Judge Burns based his sentencing determination on the substantial amount of drugs involved and on Perez’s role in the preparation for the offense. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Perez failed to prove he played only a minor role in the offense, and it did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the minor-role adjustment. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir.2006).

Because the government’s argument in support of the sentence imposed is not inconsistent with its argument to the district court, estoppel does not apply. See Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1192-93.

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