Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles LETT, aka Seal F. Chuck, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-11
Citations: 217 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 05-50967
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles LETT, aka Seal F. Chuck, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles LETT, aka Seal F. Chuck, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50967.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 11, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Janet C. Hudson, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James P. Cooper, III, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Lett appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and aid and abet the manufacture of PCP and illegal possession of a listed chemical, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (c)(2), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lett contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We disagree. A review of the record demonstrates that the district court properly compared Lett's role in the offense to all other participants, see United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir.2000), and determined that Lett was not entitled to a reduction under § 3B1.2. Based on the record, we cannot say that the district court's decision was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Awad, 371 F.3d 583, 591-92 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.