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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JESUS OC TAVIO AR

REOLAB ELTR AN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30143

D.C . No. 1:11-c r-00096-B LW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

9, 2013 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, M U R GUIA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Oc tav io Arre ola -B e ltra n (“ Arre ola -B e ltra

n” ) a ppe a ls two sepa

ra te twole ve l upwa

rd a djustm e n ts to his sente n c e , a nd the substa

n tive re a sona

ble ne s s of his
se nte nc e . He wa s c o nvic t e d by a jury for posse ssion with inte

nt to de live r 

# FIL ED

JUL 24 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).m e tha

m phe tam ine and c o n spira c y with inte nt to distribute

m e t ham phe tam ine in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Arre ola -B e ltra n wa s c o nvic te d in a joint-tria l with c o-de fe nda n t Luc io La

nde ros-Va lde z (“ Lande ros-Va lde z ” ). The third pa

rtic ipa nt in the c rim e , Jose Ga

b rie l Virge n (“ Virge n” ), c oope ra te d with the g ove rnm e nt a

n d te stifie d at the joint-tria l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. Arre ola -B e ltra

n a ppe a ls a two-le ve l upwa

rd a d justm e nt for his rolea s an

“ orga niz e r, le a de r, m ana ge r, or supe rvisor in a ny c rim ina l a c tivity ” of at le a st “ one
or m ore othe r partic ipa

nts.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(c ) c m t. n.2. W e re v ie w the distric t
c ourt’ s fa c tua l finding tha t Arre ola -B e ltra

n wa s a n orga niz e r or le a de r of c rim ina l
a c tivity for c le ar e rror. Unite d State s v . Riv e ra , 527 F.3d 891 (9th C ir. 2008). W e
re vie w the a

p plic ation of theSe nte nc i ng Guide line s to thefa c t s for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . K imbre w , 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005). He re , the distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t the re we re c ritic a l fa c ts tha t
c orroborate d Jose Ga

brie l Virge n’ s (“ Virge n” ) te stim ony tha t Arre ola -B e ltra

n wa s the l e a d e r of the sm a ll drug orga niz ation: (1) Arre ola -B e ltra n wa s the only

c ode fe nda n t to ha ve phone c onta c t with thec onfide ntia l inform ant a nd unde rc ove r offic e rs; (2) Arre ola -B e ltra n told thec onfide n tia l inform a n t he wa s se n d ing Virge n to the sa le be c a

use Arre ola -B e ltra

n wa s ne rvous tha

t Arre ola -B e ltra

n, La nde ros2Va lde z , a

nd Virge n we re be ing followe d; (3) a t the c o ntrolle d sa le Virge n told Sarge n t B anda that he ne e de d to c onfe r with Arre ola -B e l tran a bout m aking a

la rge r
sa le ; a n d (4) at the tim e of a

rre st Arre ola -B e ltra

n posse sse d

the m one ta

ry proc e e ds from the c ontrolle d sa le
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

pply ing the two-le ve l upwa rd a djustm e nt be c a

use e vide nc e wa s suffic i e nt to “ s usta in a finding” that Arre ola -B e ltra

n “ e xe rc ise d som e c ontrol ove r othe rs involve d in thec o m m ission of the o ffe nse .” Unite d State s v . Av ila , 95 F.3d 887, 889 (9th C ir. 1996) (inte rna l
c ita tion omitte d ). 2. Arre ola -B e ltra

n a ppe a ls a n a dditiona l two-le ve l upwa rd a d justm e nt to his
se nte nc e for obstruc tion of justic e . W e re vie w “ a distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inat ion of the re lia bility of e vide nc e use d at se nte n c ing for a n a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Fe lix , 561 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th C ir. 2009) (c i ting Unite d State s v . MarinC ue v as , 147 F.3d 889, 895 (9th C i r. 1998)). At se nte nc ing, thedistric t c o urt sua sponte ra i se d the issue of obstruc tion of justic e be c a

use Arre ola -B e ltra

n provide d fa l se inform ation to a probation offic e r

3during thepre pa ra tion of his Pre se nte nc e R e port. 1 Se e § 3C
. 1 c m t. n.4(H) (obstruc tion of justic e se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt a

p plie s whe re de fe nda

nt provide s
m ate ria l ly fa lse inform ation to proba tion offic e r with re spe c t

to pre s e nte nc e inve stiga tion). He re , the re is a

m ple e vide nc e tha

t Arre ola -B e ltra

n kne w of the drugs a

nd willingly pa rtic ipate d in thec rim ina l a c tivity . Whe n he wa s inte rvie we d by the probat ion offic e r, a ga inst thea dvic e of c ounse l , Arre ola -B e ltra n sta te d tha t he did not know there we re drugs in Virge n’ s c ar until he , La n de ros-Va lde z , an d Virge n
we re arre ste d. At his own se nte nc ing he a

ring, howe ve r, Arre ola -B e ltra n te stifie d that he found out a

bout thedrugs whe n he , La n de ros-Va lde z , an d Virge n a rrive d in Ore gon, a nd tha t Virge n a ske d Arre ola -B e ltra n to he lp with the

sa le in e x c ha

nge for m one y . Thus, be c a

use of Arre ola -B e ltra

n’ s own a dm ission, the

distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t Arre o la -B e ltra

n obstruc te d justic e by providing m ate ria lly

fa l se inform ation to the

probation offic e r pre pa

ring his Pre se n te nc e R e port.

1 The Gove rnm e nt ha d pre viously ra ise d a two-le ve l a djustm e nt for obstruc tion of justic e on the inde pe nde nt ground tha t Arre o la -B e ltra

n a l le ge dly m a de thre at s to c o-de fe nda nt Virge n. Arre o la -B e ltra n a rgue s tha t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support the se a lle gations. W e do not re a c h this a rgum e nt. 43. W e re vie wthe substa ntive re a sona

ble n e ss of the 240 m onth se nte n c e im pose d on Arre ola -B e ltra

n for a b use of disc re tion. G all v

. Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tions omitte d ). In C a rty , we sta

t e d tha t “ [t] he ove rarc h ing sta

tutory c ha rge for a distric t
c ourt is to ‘ im

pose a se nte nc e suffic ie nt, but not gre ate r tha n ne c e ssa ry ’ to re fle c t the s e riousne ss of the offe nse , prom ote re spe c t for the la w, a nd providejust punishm e nt; to a fford a de quate de t e rre nc e ; to prote c t the public ; an d to providethe de fe nda n t with ne e de d e duc ationa l or voc ationa l tra ining, m e dic a l c are , or othe r
c orre c tiona l tre atm e nt.” 520 F.3d a t 991 (quoting 18 U.S.C . §§ 3553(a) and (a )(2)). At se nte nc ing, thedistric t c o urt e xpla ine d the ba sis for Arre ola -B e ltra n’ s 240 m o nth se nte nc e suffic ie ntly to pe rm it m e aningful a

ppe l late re vie w. Id. at 992. The distric t c ourt re a sone d tha t Arre o la -B e l tran ’ s 240 m onth Guide line s-range
se nte nc e wa s a

ppropria te be c a u se : (1) c o-de fe n da

nt Virge n c oope ra te d during the inve stiga tion, whe re a s Arre o l a -B e ltra n did not; (2) Arre o la -B e ltra n ple d guilty

to drug tra ffic king in Ida

h o in 2008 but le ft the jurisdic t ion be fore the c ha rge c ould be
e ffe c tuat e d; (3) Arre o la -B e ltra n la c ke d a re c ord of e m

ploy m e nt e ve n though heha s be e n in theUnite d State s on a nd off sinc e he turne d e ighte e n , indic ating tha t his 5sole oc c upation is de a ling m e tha m phe tam ine ; a

nd (4) m e tha

m phe tam ine is a

ve ry
se rious drug tha

t de stroy s m any

live s. Thus, the

distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n

it im pose d a 240 m onth se nte nc e on Arre ola -B e ltra n. AFFIRM E D.

6