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. TR INA M AR IE FITZGER ALD, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50605

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-01937-JLS-1
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 Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 21, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PREGER SON, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u it Judge s. Trina M a rie Fitz g e ra l d (“ Fitz ge ra ld” ) a ppe a ls the se nte n c e and supe rvise d
re le a se c onditions im

pose d by the distric t c ourt following he r guilty ple a to im porting 64.45 kilogra

m s of m arijua

na into theUnite d

Stat e s from

M e xic o in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED D EC 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 distric t c ourt did not err whe n it de nie d the de fe nda nt a m inor role
a djustm e nt pursua

nt to Unite d

State s Se nte nc ing Guide line (“ Guide line ” ) § 3B 1 .2(b). The distric t c ourt prope rly re fuse d to c onside r hy

pothe tic a l pa rtic i pa nts whe n it found tha

t the de fe nda

n t wa s not a

m inor pa rtic ipa nt for purpose s of Guide line § 3B 1.2(b). Se e Unite d State s v . Rosas , 615 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th C ir. 2010). Them e re fa c t tha t the de fe nda

nt wa s a c ourie r did not e ntitle he r to a m inor role a djustm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Hurtado , 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2014). Thede fe nda nt im porte d a la rge qua ntity of drugs into the

Unite d Stat e s a nd ha d a n e xte n sive borde r c rossing history
. Se e id. a t 1069 (noting qua ntity of drugs im

porte d justifie d de nia l of m inor role a djustm e nt); U nite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z-C astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th C ir. 2011) (noting borde r c rossing history whe n re je c ting m inor role a djustm e n t). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr by finding Fitz ge ra ld fa ile d to prove by a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t she
wa s e ntitle d to a

m inor role a djustm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Dav i s , 36 F.3d 1424, 1436 (9th C ir. 1994). The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly re solve d the disputeove r the de fe nda nt’ s c rossing history

whe n it re

je c te d the de fe nda

n t’ s innoc e nt e xpla

nation for the
num be r of tim e s she c rosse d the borde r. B e c a use the distric t

c o urt sta te d its

“ re solution of the dispute d issue [] ,” the c ourt c om plie d with there quire m e nts of 2Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32. Unite d State s v . K arte rman , 60 F.3d 576, 583 (9th C i r. 1995). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not im prope rly de l e gate its sta

tutory a uthority whe n it le ft the fre que nc y of drug te sting to the

disc re tion of theUnite d State s Probation Offic e . It is pe rm issiblefor the c ourt to a l low “ the probation offic e r to de te rm i ne the tim ing of the te sts,” so long a s the c o urt “ d e t e rm ine [s] how m any tim e s a de fe nda nt m ay be pla c e d in je opa

rdy of be ing te ste d.” Unite d State s v . Ste p he ns , 424 F.3d 876, 883 (9th C ir. 2005). He re , the distric t c ourt did not make
a Ste phe ns e rror be c a

use it le ft only

the fre que nc y

of te sting, not the

m axim um num be r of te sts, to the

disc re tion of theprobat ion offic e r. The m a xim um num be r of te sts, a s dire c te d

by the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia ’ s Ge ne ra l Orde r No. 547A a n d the se nte nc ing orde r, is four. Thus, the c ourt, not a

probation offic e r, prope rly de te rm ine d t

he m a xim um num b e r of tim e s the “ de fe nda n t m ay be pla c e d in je opa rdy of be ing te ste d.” Ste

phe n s , 424 F.3d a

t 883. AFFIRM E D.

3