Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MARAVILLA-LEON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-09
Citations: 471 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 11-10404
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose MARAVILLA-LEON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose MARAVILLA-LEON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10404.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 9, 2012.
Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S., USTUOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Leticia Dabdoub-Caballero, Esquire, Law Office of Brenda DabdoubCaballero, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Jose Maravilla-Leon appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Maravilla-Leon contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A); United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000).
Maravilla-Leon also contends that because the jury did not make a weight determination as to the weight of the drugs seized, the district court was limited to a weight determination of 50 kilograms pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). This argument fails because the district court may determine drug quantity as long as that determination does not have the effect of increasing the statutory maximum sentence. See United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1211-12 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.