Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe GONZALEZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-05
Citations: 369 F. App'x 828
Docket Number: No. 09-50145
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe GONZALEZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 828–829

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe GONZALEZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50145.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 5, 2010.
Sherri Walker Hobson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Inge E. Brauer, 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
Guadalupe Gonzalez-Alvarado appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez-Alvarado contends that the district court erred in determining that she was ineligible for the minor participant role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gonzalez-Alvarado had not met her burden of proof of establishing that she was substantially less culpable than co-participants in the smuggling scheme. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006). Contrary to Gonzalez-Alvarado's contention, the district court's findings encompassed the required comparison of Gonzalez-Alvarado with co-participants in the scheme.
Gonzalez-Alvarado further contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and discuss the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence when it placed greater weight on the serious nature of the offense than on the other § 3553(a) factors. Our review of the record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court's sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.