United States v. Adriana Bonilla , 551 F. App'x 388 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          JAN 03 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50554
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:12-cr-03364-LAB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ADRIANA BONILLA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 17, 2013**
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Adriana Bonilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
    the 57-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for
    importation of heroin, 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).
    Bonilla contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a
    minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record reflects that the
    court properly compared Bonilla’s conduct to that of an average participant in
    determining whether to grant the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 
    433 F.3d 1269
    , 1283 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Bonilla failed to establish that she was
    substantially less culpable than the average participant, the district court did not
    clearly err by denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United
    States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 
    641 F.3d 1189
    , 1193 (9th Cir. 2011).
    Bonilla next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
    district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bonilla’s sentence. See Gall
    v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). The sentence 13 months below the
    bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the
    totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 
    id. AFFIRMED. 2
                                        12-50554
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-50554

Citation Numbers: 551 F. App'x 388

Judges: Goodwin, Graber, Wallace

Filed Date: 1/3/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023