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. JOSE JAIR

SAINZ-C AM AC HO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50115

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-04022-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 M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Ja ir Sa i nz -C am a c h o a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t a nd c ha lle nge s the 67-m onth c ustodia l se nte nc e an d e ight-y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a se im

pose d following his guilty -ple a c o nvic tion for im

porta tion of he roin a

nd m e tha m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED MAR 16 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).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . Sa inz -C am a c h o c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his re que st for a m inor role a djustm e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1 .2(b) by m isa pply i ng the Guide line and re ly ing on im prope r c onside ra t ions. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theGuide line s de novo, its a pplic ation of theGuide line s to the fa c t s of the c a se for a

buse of disc re tion, a

n d its fa c tua l de te rm inat ion tha t a de fe nda n t is not a m inor pa

rtic ipa nt for c le ar e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

zC astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011). There c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t c ourt unde rstood a

nd a p plie d the c orre c t le g a l sta nda rd, prope rly

c onside re d the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s , a nd did not re ly

on im prope r fa c tors in de ny i ng the a djustm e nt. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m t. n. 3(A), (C ); Unite d State s v . Hurtado , 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th C ir. 2014), c e rt. de nie d , 2015 W L 732229 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2015). The re c ord furthe r supports thec o urt’ s c onc lusion tha t Sa inz -C am a c ho fa ile d to c arry

his burde n of e sta

blishing tha

t he wa s e ntitle d to thea djustm e nt. Se e Rodrigue z-C astro , 641 F.3d a

t 1193. Sa inz -C am a c h o a lso c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by fa iling to e xpla in why

it im pose d supe rvise d re le a se de s pite U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c ), whic h provide s tha

t supe rvise d re le a se should not ordina rily be im pose d if the de fe nda n t is a de porta ble a lie n. The re c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t

c ourt
1 4 - 5 0 1 1 5 2a de quate ly

c onside re d

se c tion 5D1.1(c ) and e xpla ine d tha t it be lie ve d tha

t a supe rvise d re le a se te rm

wa s ne c e ssa

ry to de t e r in this c a se . Se e U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 c m t. n.5; K imbrough v . Unite d State

s , 552 U.S. 85, 108-10 (2007) (distric t c ourts have disc re tion to va

ry from the Guide line s on polic y

grounds). Sa inz -C am a c h o la st c onte nds tha t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing Sa inz -C am a c h o’ s se nte nc e . S

e e Gall v
. Unite d State

s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The te rm of supe rvise d re le a se and be low-Guide line s c ustodia l se n te nc e are substa ntive ly re a s ona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors a n d the tota lity of the c irc um s ta nc e s , inc luding thela

rge am ount of na

rc otic s tha

t Sa inz -C am a c ho im porte d. Se e Gall , 552 U.S. a t 51. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 0 1 1 5 3