Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laura Elena TREJO-MACIAS, a.k.a. Laura Trejo De Alatorre, a.k.a. Laura Trejo-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-25
Citations: 514 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 12-50262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laura Elena TREJO-MACIAS, a.k.a. Laura Trejo De Alatorre, a.k.a. Laura Trejo-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laura Elena TREJO-MACIAS, a.k.a. Laura Trejo De Alatorre, a.k.a. Laura Trejo-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50262.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 25, 2013.
Daniel C. Silva, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc B. Geller, Esquire, Marc B. Geller, Attorney at Law, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Laura Elena Trejo-Macias appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 151-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial 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.
Trejo-Macias contends that the district court failed to make the requisite perjury-findings to support the imposition of a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Trejo-Maci-as never objected to the enhancement in the district court and, in fact, filed sentencing summary charts prior to and at the sentencing hearing that included the obstruction of justice enhancement. Therefore, the district court's duty to make findings on materiality, falsity and willfulness was never triggered. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94-95, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.