Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo GAYTAN-SALIM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 14-50493
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo GAYTAN-SALIM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo GAYTAN-SALIM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50493.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Lara Stingley, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerardo A. Gonzalez, Esquire, Law Office of Gerardo A. Gonzalez, San Diego, CA, Seth H. Kretzer, Law Office of Seth Kretzer, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, 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
Gustavo Gaytan-Salim appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 75-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.
Gaytan-Salim contends 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 role 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.Ed.2d 412 (2015). The record reflects that the court properly applied the Guidelines and our precedent, considering the totality of the circumstances as well as Gaytan-Salim'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 err 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.