Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Benjamin VELASQUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-25
Citations: 514 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 12-10057
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Benjamin VELASQUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Benjamin VELASQUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10057.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 25, 2013.
Lawrence Lee, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas E. Higgins, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Jesus Benjamin Velasquez, Jr., appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Velasquez first contends that the district court erred in denying him a role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review for clear error. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Velasquez failed to prove that he was substantially less culpable than the average participant, the district court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1061, 181 L.Ed.2d 778 (2012).
Velasquez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, failing to explain the sentence or why it rejected his mitigating arguments, and treating the Guidelines as mandatory. The record belies these contentions.
Velasquez finally contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Velasquez's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.