Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mirna VALENZUELA-VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 09-10157
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mirna VALENZUELA-VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mirna VALENZUELA-VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10157.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Micah Schmit, USTU-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Alejandro Esteban Munoz, Esquire, The Munoz Law Firm, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Mirna Valenzuela-Verdugo appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, 952, and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valenzuela-Verdugo contends the district court erred by denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). 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).
Valenzuela-Verdugo also contends that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err and, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 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).
Valenzuela-Verdugo apparently further contends that the sentencing judge's status as a visiting judge somehow implicated the reasonableness of her sentence. We reject this contention. See United States v. Green, 89 F.3d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1996) ("This court rejects the request to distinguish between visiting and non-visiting district court judges.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.