Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio VENEGAS-MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-15
Citations: 375 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 09-50012
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio VENEGAS-MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 786–786

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio VENEGAS-MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 15, 2010.
Michael Lewis Merriman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Sergio Venegas-Martin Del Campo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Venegas-Martin Del Campo contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was merely a courier of the drugs involved. The record reflects that Venegas-Martin Del Campo knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000), and planned on accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006).
Further, the district court did not misapply the guidelines because Venegas-Martin Del Campo failed to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment. See Hursh, 217 F.3d at 770; Davis, 36 F.3d at 1437.
Venegas-Martin Del Campo also contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed to apply the parsimony principle; (2) created an unwarranted sentencing disparity among drug importation cases; and (3) based its sentence on a clearly erroneous fact. The record shows that the district court did not procedurally err and that Venegas-Martin Del Campo's sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (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.