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. ER VIN R O NALDO M A LDONADOGOM EZ, De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50145

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-02824-H 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 M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 11, 2017 ** B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Ervin Rona l do M a ldona do-Gom e za ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha l le nge s the 48-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty -ple a 

# FIL ED APR 24 2017 M OLLY C. 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.

* * 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952, 960. W e hav e jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . M a ldona do-Gom e z first c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to c a lc ulate the Guilde line range c orre c tly be c a use it by pa sse d the issue of whe t

he r he wa s e ntitle d to a m inor role a djustm e nt, a nd inste a d

c o n side re d the m inor role fa c tors in its va rianc e ana ly s is. The re c ord be lie s this a rgum e nt. The c ourt de nie d a m inor role a djustm e nt ba se d on thefa c t s of M a ldona do-Gom e z ’ s c a se . The c ourt’ s subse q ue nt c onside ration of some of the fa c t s a sse rte d in support of the m i nor role a djustm e nt to gra

nt downwa

rd de pa rture s tota lly

six le ve l s wa s not im

prope r. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Ramos-Me dina , 706 F.3d 932, 941 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [A] c ourt m ay c onside r a c c e pta

nc e of re sponsibility

se pa rate ly in im posing a se nte nc e , e ve n if the c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the de fe nda

nt did not qua

l ify for a form a l a djustm e nt on thosegrounds under the Guide line s.” ). M a ldona do-Gom e z ne xt c onte nds tha t the c ourt’ s m inor role ana l y s is wa s flawe d be c a use the c o urt did not c o m pa re him to his c o-pa

rtic ipa nts in theoffe nse and did not c o n side r the five fa c tors e num e rate d in thec om m e nta ry to the m inor role Guide line . Howe ve r, the re c ord de m o nstra te s tha t the distric t

c ourt prope rly c om pa re d M a ldona do-Gom e zto his c o-pa rtic i pa nts in theoffe nse and c onside re d the fa c tors e n

um e rate d in theGuide line and the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s , to 1 6 - 5 0 1 4 5 2de te rm i ne whe t h e r M a l dona do-Gom e z wa s “ substa ntia lly le ss c ulpa

ble tha n the ave ra ge pa

rtic ipa nt.” Se eU.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m t. n.3(A), (C ); Unite d State s v . Quinte ro-Le

y v a , 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th C ir. 2016); se ealso C arty , 520 F.3d a

t 992 (distric t judge s a

re pre sum e d to know the

la wan d ne e d not “ tic k off” a ll of the se nte nc ing fa c t ors). M ore o ve r, in light of the c irc um sta nc e s of the offe nse , the distric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in c onc luding tha

t M a ldona do-Gom e z wa s not a m inor pa rtic ipa nt. Se e Quinte ro-Le

y v a , 823 F.3d a

t 523. AFFIRM E D.

1 6 - 5 0 1 4 5 3