N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R OB ER TO C ARLOS R IVER A C ASANOVA,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50180

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00312-L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M . Ja m e s Lore nz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. R obe rto C arlos Rive ra

C a sa nova a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt and c ha lle nge s the 132-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d following his guilty ple a c onvic tion for im

porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 

# FIL ED DEC 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and 960. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm .

R ive ra C a s anova

c onte n ds the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his third re que s t to substitute

c ounse l. Apply ing this c ourt’ s thre e -fa c tor te st, we c onc lude that the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion. Se eUnite d State s v . Me nde

zSanc he z , 563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th C ir. 2009). Eve n if Ri ve ra C a sa nova ’ s re que st wa s tim e l y , the c ourt’ s inquiry wa s a de quat e in light of its history with Ri ve ra C a sa nova . Se eid. at 942-43. M ore ove r, give n tha t the purporte d c o nflic t be twe e n R ive ra C a sa nova and his c ounse l wa s sim ila r in na ture to the c onflic ts Rive ra C a sa nova ha d e xpe rie nc e d with his previous a ttorne y s, the c ourt re a sona bly de nie d R ive ra C a sa nova ’ s re que st for ne w c ounse l. S e eid. at 944 (“ [T] he fa c t tha t this wa s the sa

m e bre akdown in c o m

m unic ations tha

t ha d oc c urre d with his previous la wy e r is signific ant. . . . If [de fe n da nt] ha d re c e i ve d othe r c ounse l, it is like ly tha t the s am e c onflic ts would ha v e arise n.” ). R ive ra C a s anova

a lso a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing a m inor role re duc tion to his ba se offe nse le ve l unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2. Afte r R ive ra C a sa nova wa s se nte nc e d, the Unite d State s Se nte nc ing C om m ission issue d Am e ndm e nt 794 (“ the Am e ndm e nt” ), whic h am e nde d the c om m e nta ry to the m inor role Guide line . The Am e ndm e nt is re troa c tive to c a se s pe nding on dire c t a ppe a l. Se eUnite d State

s v . Quinte ro-Le

y v a , 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th C ir. 2016).

1 5 - 5 0 1 8 0 2The Am e ndm e nt a dde d a non-e xha ustivelist of fa c tors a

c ourt “ should c onside r” in de te rm i ning whe the r to a

pply a m inor role re duc tion. Se eU.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m t. n.3(C ) (2015). W e are satisfie d tha t the distric t c ourt’ s sta

te d rationa le for re je c ting Rive ra

C a sa nova ’ s re q

ue st for a re duc tion re m a ins a de quate unde r the re vise d c o m

m e nta ry . In light of the

tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly

e rr in de te rm ining tha

t R i ve ra C a sa nova fa ile d to provetha

t he wa s e ntitle d to thea d

justm e nt. U

nite d State

s v . C a ntre ll , 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th C ir. 2006) (se tting forth sta nding of re vie w). AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 5 0 1 8 0 3