Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 09-50207
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 816–816

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50207.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 2, 2010.
Michael Lewis Merriman, Bruce R. Cas-tetter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert H. Rexrode, III, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Juan Carlos Guzman appeals from the 75-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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Guzman contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Guzman failed to carry his burden of proving that he is entitled to such an adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006). Among other things, Guzman 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). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See Cantrell, 433 F.3d at 1283-84 (holding that district court's decision regarding defendant's minor role status was not clearly erroneous); United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that district court need not accept the government's recommendation of a minor role reduction).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.