Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PACHECO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-17
Citations: 599 F. App'x 809
Docket Number: No. 14-10093
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PACHECO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 809–810

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PACHECO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10093.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 29, 2015.
Filed April 17, 2015.
Susan B. Gray, Barbara Valliere, Assis- , tant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Erik G. Babcock, Law Office Of Erick G. Babcock, Oakland, CA, Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Jesus Pacheco appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pacheco contends that the district court clearly erred by denying him a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). In light of the very large quantity of methamphetamine and Pacheco's conduct over the course of several days, including storing methamphetamine at his home, the district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2014); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.