Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo Edward OWEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 615 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 14-50365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo Edward OWEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo Edward OWEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., P. Kevin Mo-khtari, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McKEOWN, 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
Domingo Edward Owen appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Owen asserts that the district court erred by declining to award a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review a district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its determination that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, 191 L.Edüd 412 (2015). The record reflects that the court properly applied the Guidelines and our precedent, considering the totality of the circumstances as well as Owen's role in the smuggling operation. See id. at 1068-69; United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011). The district court did not clearly error in denying the adjustment. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1068-69.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.