Opinion ID: 747234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Romo.

Text: 32 Romo argues that there was insufficient evidence that he knew the money represented the proceeds of cocaine sales. A reasonable jury could have concluded from the evidence about Romo's pager contacts, associations, and criminal history that when he handed over $60,000 cash in a parking lot, he knew the money represented proceeds of cocaine distribution. Likewise, a jury could permissibly conclude from the evidence that Romo was part of the conspiracy. See United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d 455, 458 (9th Cir.1991). 33 Romo also argues that the district court erred in denying him a reduction for minor participant status under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court found that [t]he involvement of the defendant was more than a cameo appearance, it was more than a minor or a minimal participant passing through. The court continued, the evidence in view of all of the things that are going on indicates a deeper involvement than simply a passing, innocent participant recruited for one single event. These findings were not clearly erroneous, and denial of the reduction was a proper exercise of discretion. 34 Romo also argues that he was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, because after he was convicted in a jury trial, he wrote a letter to the court saying I am truly sorry for the present offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment. See United States v. Dia, 69 F.3d 291 (9th Cir.1995). 35