Case ID: f-appx_286/html/0999-01.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. Armando GAMEZ-AMARO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2008.
    
    Filed Aug. 6, 2008.
    
      Anne E. Mosher, Esq., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sean Bruner, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Gamez-Amaro appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gamez-Amaro challenges the district court’s application of a two-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(c). Because the record reflects that Gamez-Amaro’s co-defendants stated that he recruited them and directed them to assist him with packing marijuana, we conclude that the district court’s application of the enhancement was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2000) (“A single incident of persons acting under a defendant’s direction is sufficient evidence to support a two-level role enhancement.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that an evidentiary hearing was not required. See United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir .2001).

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