Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Flavio Gutierrez RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 601 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 14-50181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Flavio Gutierrez RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Flavio Gutierrez RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50181.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 28, 2015.
Faith Aline Devine, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Flavio Gutierrez Rubio appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gutierrez Rubio contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b) by failing to conduct a full inquiry into the applicability of the adjustment, and by misapplying the Guideline. We review the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its factual determination that a defendant is 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, — L.Ed.2d - (2015). Contrary to Gutierrez Rubio's contention, the record reflects that the district court conducted an individualized analysis of his role in the offense, understood and applied the correct legal standard, property considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper fae- tors in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A), (C); Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1068-69. Moreover, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Gutierrez Rubio did not play a minor • role in the offense. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.