Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Daniel RAMIREZ-ARMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-26
Citations: 314 F. App'x 81
Docket Number: No. 08-50156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge Daniel RAMIREZ-ARMAS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge Daniel RAMIREZ-ARMAS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-50156.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed Feb. 26, 2009.
Charlotte E. Kaiser, Caleb Edward Mason, U.S. Assistant, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff — Ap-pellee.
Michael L. Crowley, Law Offices of Michael L. Crowley, San Diego, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Daniel Ramirez-Armas appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramirez-Armas contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not err. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000).
Ramirez-Armas also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the fact that he provided the government with all the facts utilized by the district court at sentencing. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.