Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicisimo G. CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 426 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 10-10167
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicisimo G. CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicisimo G. CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10167.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 11, 2011.
Karon Virginia Johnson, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John T. Gorman, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Mongmong, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Felicísimo G. Castillo appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. granted§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Castillo contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Contrary to Castillo's assertion, the district court considered Castillo's culpability relative to that of others involved in the conspiracy, and the denial of the mitigating role adjustment was not clearly erroneous under the specific facts of this case. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269,1282-84 (9th Cir.2006).
Castillo further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.