Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucina ROJO-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 674 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 15-50564
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucina ROJO-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant,
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucina ROJO-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant,
No. 15-50564
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Charlotte E. Kaiser, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
Tommy Hai Vu, Esquire, Trial Attorney, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Lueina Rojo-Rivas appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 55-month concurrent sentences imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rojo-Rivas contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). She argues that the district court failed to consider Amendment 794, which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline, and that the court clearly erred in finding that she did not play a minor role in the offense. We need not reach these issues because we conclude that any error in the district court's application of the minor role Guideline was harmless. The district court calculated the Guidelines range with and without the minor role reduction and explained the basis for the 55-month sentence under each range. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.