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. IVAN DE JESUS LOPEZ-ILUSTR E, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50097

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-03341-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

April 7, 2015 * * B e fore : FISHER , TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ivan De Je sus Lope z -Ilustre a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 72-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 & 960. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED APR 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Lope z -Ilustre c onte n ds tha t the distric t

c ourt proc e dura lly

e rre d by fa iling to award him

a m itiga t ing role a djustm e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1 .2. W e re v ie w the distric t c o urt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte n c ing Guide line s de novo, its a pplic ation of the Guide line s to thefa c ts of the c a se for a buse of disc re tion, a

nd its de te rm i nation tha

t a de fe nda nt wa s not a

m inor pa rtic ipa nt for c le a

r e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Hurtado , 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2014). C ontra ry to Lope z -Ilustre ’ s a

rgum e nt, the re c ord shows tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d the Se nte nc ing Guide line s a nd our pre c e de nt, ba s ing its denia l of the a djustm e nt on thetota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s and a

c om pa rison of Lope z Ilustre ’ s c ulpa

bility to tha

t of othe r individuals in thesm uggling operation. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m

t. n.3(A), (C ); Hurtado , 760 F.3d a t 1068-69. The

distric t c ourt a ppropria te ly re quire d Lope z -Ilustre to e sta

blish his e ligibility

for the m itiga ting role a djustm e n t by

a pre ponde ranc e of the e v ide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Zak harov , 468 F.3d 1171, 1181 (9th C ir. 2006). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in de ny ing the m itiga ting rolea d

justm e nt whe n Lope z -Ilustre sm uggle d a signific ant qua

ntity of a da nge rous drug, wa s prom i se d c om p e nsation for his se rvic e s, a

nd use d a ve hic le re giste re d in his own na m e to c om

m it the offe nse . Se e Hurtado , 760 F.3d a t 1069.

1 4 - 5 0 0 9 7 2Lope z -Ilustre a lso a rgue s tha t his se nte n c e is substa

ntive l y unre a s ona

ble be c a use it doe s not re fle c t his truec ulpa bility . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing Lope z -Ilustre ’ s se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

zC astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th C ir. 2011). Thebe low-Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors a nd the tota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s. Se e id. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 0 0 9 7 3