Court Opinion

ID: 2675463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-22 21:00:32.425978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:22.423208
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 22 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50253

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:12-cr-04970-LAB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
TEODORO LEON-VARGAS,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 13, 2014**

Before:        CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       Teodoro Leon-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 68-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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Leon-Vargas contends that the district court erred by considering the amount

of drugs involved in the offense when it denied his request for a minor role

adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). This contention is foreclosed. See United

States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011) (relying in part

on the quantity of drugs involved to affirm denial of minor role adjustment); see

also Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010) (a three-judge panel is

bound by circuit precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening

higher authority).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    13-50253