Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacqueline MOSTI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 14-50121
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacqueline MOSTI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacqueline MOSTI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 16, 2015.
Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Peter KO, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Paul Allen Barr, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristi A. Hughes, Sarah Rose Weinman, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant>-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Jacqueline Mosti appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mosti contends that the district court erred in denying her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by applying the wrong burden of proof, misapplying the Guideline, and relying on improper considerations. We review the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.2011). The record reflects that the district court understood and applied the correct legal standard and applicable burden of proof, properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper factors in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A), (C); United States v. Godson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1223 (9th Cir.2014). The record further supports the court's conclusion that Mosti failed to carry her burden of establishing that she was entitled to the adjustment. See Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.