Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BARRERA-VALDIVIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-20
Citations: 689 F. App'x 487
Docket Number: No. 16-50070
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BARRERA-VALDIVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BARRERA-VALDIVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50070
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 20, 2017
Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kristi A. Hughes, Bridget Lynn Kennedy, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Federal De fenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
David Barrera-Valdivia appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Barrera-Valdivia contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the factors enumerated in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and explain why he was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under those factors. The record reflects that the court considered Barrera-Valdivia's sentencing arguments concerning the five Guideline factors, and asked questions regarding those arguments. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the court considered the Guideline factors and their application to this case. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir, 2008). Moreover, the court's reasons for denying a minor role adjustment are apparent from the record. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.