Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sung O. KWON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-27
Citations: 558 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 13-10229
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sung O. KWON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 735–735

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sung O. KWON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10229.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Merchant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sung O. Kwon appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kwon contends that the district court erred by granting a two-level role adjustment rather than a three- or four-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review for clear error. See United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1110 (9th Cir.2008). The district court did not clearly err because the record reflects that Kwon was entrusted with a substantial amount of methamphetamine, and he traveled from the Philippines to Guam on three occasions as a part of the criminal enterprise. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.