Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto TERRIQUEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 06-50535
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto TERRIQUEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 716–716

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto TERRIQUEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50535.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., Neville S. Hedley, U.S. Attorneys Office, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Holly Sullivan, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alberto Terriquez-Flores appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed upon re-sentencing following his jury-trial conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Terriquez-Flores contends that the district court erred by denying a downward adjustment for minor role premised on a lack of evidence while simultaneously granting an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice relying on the same evidence. We disagree. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Terriquez-Flores had not met his burden of establishing that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Cordova Barajas, 360 F.3d 1037,1042-43 (9th Cir.2004).
Furthermore, the district court's findings were sufficient to apply the enhancement for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.