NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. GLORIA SANCHEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50168
D.C. No. 3:16

- cr - 02077

- BEN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 1 2 , 2018 **
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Gloria Sanchez appeals from the distr ict court’s judgment and challenges the
87

- month sentence imposed following h er guilty

- plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50168

Sanchez conten ds that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the factors relevant to the minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 , focusing solely on Sanchez’s knowledge of the scope and structure of the
criminal activit y. We revie w the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de
novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Gas c a - Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167, 1170

- 71 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Although the district court did not discuss all of the fact ors listed in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, the record shows that the court was aware of and considered th ose factors

. See United States v. Diaz , 884 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances , including that
Sanchez had smuggled drugs across the border on two prior occasions and was also involved in transporting vehicles for the organization, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the reduction

. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).
Sanchez next argues the district court erred by departing downward in offense level, rather than in criminal history category, after it concluded that
Sanchez’ s criminal history categor y overrepresented her criminal history. Any

error was harmless. Se e U nited States v. Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 42 1 (9th Cir. 2011).
As Sanchez concedes , the reduction in offense level resulted in the same Guidelines range that would have applied had the district court instead reduced her criminal history category

. Sanchez’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal,3 17

- 50168

that the court’s decision not reduce her criminal history category could prejudice her in a future supervised release revocat ion proceeding is enti rely speculative; if
Sanchez faces revocation in the future, she may argue for a lower criminal history category at that time. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 cmt. n.2. Finally, Sanchez conten ds that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32 and due process by considering the facts of another
defendant’s case . This claim fails . The district court described the relevant facts
of the other case and gave counsel an opportunity to comment. See United States
v. Warr , 530 F. 3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing Rule 32’s requirements)

. In addition, Sanchez has not established that the information regarding the other

case “demonstrably made the basis for [her] sentence.” United States v. Vanderwerfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 93 5

- 36 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.