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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ADRIANA NAVAR

RETE, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50194

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00596-B EN-5
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 R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 10, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, KOZINSKI, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s.

“ W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of the[U.S. Se nte nc ing] Guide line s de novo, thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of theGuide line s to the fa c ts of the c a se for a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings for c le ar



# FIL ED SEP 14 2017 M O LLYC. 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.e rror.” Unite d State s v . Tre a dw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th C ir. 2010). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The re c ord e sta

blishe s tha

t the distric t c ourt c onside re d the e num e rate d fa c t ors in thec om

m e nta ry to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 whe n a sse ssing whe the r Na

va rre t e should re c e ive a se nte nc e re duc tion for pla y ing a m inor role in the offe nse . Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2, c m

t. n.3(C ) (2015). De fe nse c ounse l liste d a ll five fa c tors in the guide l ine s c om

m e nta ry , a nd the distric t c o urt sta

te d tha t it ha d “ c onside re d the
a pplic ation note s of 3B 1.2.” “ W e a ssum e tha t distric t judge s know thela w a nd unde rsta nd the i r obliga

tion to c onside r a l l of the [se nte nc i ng] fa c tors.” Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C i r. 2008). “ The distric t c ourt ne e d not tic k off e a c h of the [se nte nc ing] fa c tors to show tha t it ha s c onside re d the m .” Id. The distric t c o urt did not im

prope rly re ly sole ly upon Na va rre te ’ s “ e s se ntia l role ” in the
c onspira c y , a

nd did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing a m inor role se nte nc e
re duc t ion. 2. The re is no doubt tha

t Na va rre te kne w the la

unde re d funds we re the proc e e ds of c oc a ine sa le s or we re inte nde d to prom ote the distribution of c oc a ine
. The distric t c ourt the re fore prope rly a pplie d a six-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1).

23. Na va rre te e nte re d into a

ple a a gre e m e nt pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 11(c )(1)(B ). The distric t c ourt wa s not bound by its te rm s,
c ompare Fe d. R . C rim . P. 11(c )(1)(B ), w ith Fe d. R . C rim . P. 11(c )(1)(C ), and at he r
c ha nge -of-ple a

he aring, Na

va rre te c onfirm e d that she unde rstood thenature of he r
a gre e m e nt. W

h e n the distric t c ourt re

je c te d the ple a a gre e m e nt, it provide d a robust e xpla

nat ion of thenature of the offe nse an d Na va rre te ’ s role . The re wa s thus no e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s re je c tion of Na

va rre te ’ s ple a a gre e m e nt. 4. All a rgum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e in Na va rre te ’ s re ply

brie f are
wa ive d. Se eUnite d State s v . Romm , 455 F.3d 990, 997 (9th C i r. 2006). AFFIRM E D.

3