Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar GOMEZ DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-30
Citations: 329 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 08-50081
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar GOMEZ DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 124–124

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar GOMEZ DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50081.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed June 30, 2009.
Fred Sheppard, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo M. Gonzalez, Esquire, Law Office of Ricardo Gonzalez, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cesar Gomez Delgado appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez Delgado contends the district court erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000).
Gomez Delgado further contends that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.