NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ARTURO DELGADO

- VEGA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 50224
D.C. No. 3:16

- cr - 02609

- BEN

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020 * *
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Arturo Delgado

- Vega appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 1 1 0

- month sentence imposed on remand following his guilty

- plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

* 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

JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 50224

and we affirm. Delgado

- Vega contends that the district judge exhibited impermissibl e bias against him and his counsel during the resentencing proceedings , resulting in the erroneous denial of a minor role adjustment and a substantively unreasonable
sentence . We disagree. The record shows that , over the course of two hearings, the judge engaged in a lengthy discussion with both counsel about the minor role adjustment and other Guidelines disputes, and fully explained its calculations and the sentence selected. Any expressions of pique do not reflect “deep

- seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Moreover, contrary to Delgado

- Vega’s claims, the district court did not suggest that a courier like Delgado

- Vega could never receive a minor

- role reduction; it properly focused on Delgado

- Vega’s role in the particular organization for which he worked and the factors that inform whether a minor role reduction should be granted , s ee U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). The court did not abuse its discretion in concludin g that Delgado

- Vega was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant ” in the drug trafficking offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); see United States v. Diaz , 884 F.3d 911, 91 4 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review)

. Lastly, the d istrict court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 110

-3 19

- 50224

month sentence

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court explained that , without a minor role reduction, the Guidelines range was “too high,” but with a minor role reducti on, it was “spot on.” Thus, it exercised its discretion to vary downward to a sentence in the middle of the latter range, reduced further by 10 months to reflect Delgado

- Vega’s post

- sentencing rehabilitation. The resulting 110

- month sentence is substanti vely reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Delgado

- Vega’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offense. See Gall , 552
U.S. at 51

. Delgado

- Vega’s unopposed motion to submit a late reply brief is granted. The Clerk will file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 21. Delgado

- Vega’s motion to seal is granted

. The Clerk will file under seal the motion and supplemental excerpts of record at Docket Entry No. 24.
AFFIRMED.