Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose de Jesus Marrujo MEZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 09-10192
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose de Jesus Marrujo MEZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 409–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose de Jesus Marrujo MEZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10192.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Richard Madril, Esquire, The Law Office of Richard Madril, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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
Jose de Jesus Marrujo Meza appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) and 960(b)(1)(H); possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(i); and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) and 960(b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Meza contends that the district court erred by denying the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment for a minimal or minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a defendant "may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor participant," and that "possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.