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. KANNIS B ETANC OUR T; DULC E GIANNA M EDSENIA B R ITO,

De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts, No. 16-50059

16-50066 D.C . No. 3:15-c r-01303-LAB
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 Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. In the se c om

pa nion a ppe a ls, Ka

nnis B e ta nc ourt a nd Dulc e Gia

nna M e dse nia B rito a ppe a l the 36-m onth se nte nc e s im pose d following the ir guilty -ple a 

# FIL ED FEB 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his d isposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation and is n ot pre c e d e 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 lud es t h is cas e is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c onvic tions for m aking fa lse sta te m e nts to fe de ra l offic e rs, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Appe lla nts c onte nd tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d the ir due proc e ss rights by fa iling to a

pply the c le a r a nd c onvinc ing sta

nda rd of proof to its finding tha t the y kne w the re we re drugs in thec a r. This a rgum e nt fa i ls be c a

use the re c o rd re fle c ts that the c ourt e xpre s sly

de c l ine d to find tha

t the de fe n da

nts knowingly

im porte d drugs. Inste a d, the c ourt sta te d tha t it wa s fore s e e a

ble to both a

ppe lla nts, ba se d on the i r a d m itte d be lie f that the y we re sm uggling drug proc e e ds, tha t the c ar m ight
c onta in drugs. C ontra

ry to a ppe lla nts’ argum e nt, this wa s a

re a sona ble infe re nc e from the re c o rd, give n the ir a dm issions a nd the c irc um sta

nc e s of the offe nse . Thus, thec ourt did not viola te a ppe lla nts’ due proc e ss rights in im posing the ir
se nte nc e s. Se e Unite d State s v . Vande rw e rfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th C ir. 2009) (due proc e ss viola

te d only whe n the se nte nc ing c ourt re lie s on e vide nc e tha t

“ la c ks som e m inim a l indic ium of re l ia bility ” (inte rna l quota

tions omitte d)). M ore ove r, the c ourt’ s re m a ining infe re n c e s, inc luding tha t a ppe lla nts we re like ly atte m pting to a v oid de t e c tion whe n

c rossing theborde r, we re not c le arly
e rrone ous, give n the ir a dm i ssions re ga rding thepurpose of the ir c rossing. Se e Unite d State s v . Graf , 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ A finding is c le arly
e rrone ous if it is illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in the re c ord.” ).

16
- 5 00 5 9 & 1 6
- 5 0 0 6 6 2Fina lly , a ppe l la nts c onte nd tha

t the ir se nte nc e s a

re substa ntive ly
unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing thea

bove
Guide line s se nte nc e s in light of the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors a n d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, inc luding thea

p pe lla nts’ a dm ission tha

t the y c o m m itte d the offe nse in the c ourse of the i r work on be ha lf of a drug-tra ffic king orga

niz ation. Se e Gall v . Unite d

State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRM E D.

16
- 5 00 5 9 & 1 6
- 5 0 0 6 6 3