Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Flores WONG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-27
Citations: 600 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: No. 14-50195
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Flores WONG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Flores WONG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50195.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 27, 2015.
Jose Castillo, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeremy D. Warren, Warren & Burstein, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Raul Flores Wong appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores Wong contends that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines and for clear error the district court's factual 'determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, - L.Ed.2d - (2015). Contrary to Flores Wong's contention, the record reflects that the court properly considered his culpability relative to that of the average participant in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A). Further, to the extent Flores Wong contends that he is entitled to a minor role reduction, the district court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.