Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Juan Guadalupe JACOBO-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 09-10144
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Juan Guadalupe JACOBO-REGALADO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 971–971

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Juan Guadalupe JACOBO-REGALADO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-10144.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Cory Michael Picton, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Saul M. Huerta, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Juan Guadalupe Jacobo-Regalado appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately 667 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)©. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Jacobo-Regalado contends that the district court erred by failing to consider his argument in support of his request for a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record reflects that the district court gave sufficient consideration to Jacobo-Regalado's written submissions and arguments in favor of the adjustment, and did not clearly err by denying the request. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court did not procedurally err, as it correctly calculated the applicable Guidelines range and imposed a sentence below that range in accordance with its consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (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.