Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Huidong KANG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-28
Citations: 632 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 14-10567
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Huidong KANG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Huidong KANG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10567.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
Stephen Francis Leon Guerrero, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Ha-gatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edward C. Han, Esquire, Law Office of Edward C. Han, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Kenneth Huidong Kang appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the six-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for criminal conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 371, and harboring illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kang argues that the district court erred by denying his request for a three-level mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review a district court's determination that a defendant did not have a mitigated role for clear error. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2010). In light of the facts, including the length of Kang's involvement in the conspiracy and his harboring of illegal aliens in his own home, the district court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See id. at 1067-68.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.