United States v. Roberto Villarruel-Quintanilla , 677 F. App'x 391 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50195
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02948-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERTO VILLARRUEL-
QUINTANILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Villarruel-Quintanilla appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to import heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Villarruel-Quintanilla argues that the district court erred in denying a minor
role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We decline to
reach this claim because any error was harmless. Although the court rejected the
parties’ joint request for a minor role reduction, it explained that, even if it had
granted a minor role reduction and started its sentencing analysis with the lower
Guidelines range, it would have varied upwards and imposed a sentence of 72
months in light of the circumstances of the offense, particularly the large amount
of drugs that Villarruel-Quintanilla conspired to import. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Under these circumstances, we conclude that any error in failing to grant the minor
role reduction requested by Villarruel-Quintanilla was harmless. See United States
v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless error may
result where the district judge “acknowledges that the correct Guidelines range is
in dispute and performs his analysis twice, beginning with both the correct and
incorrect range”).1
1
Villarruel-Quintanilla contends that the government waived the argument
that any error in denying minor role was harmless by not addressing it in its
answering brief. We exercise our discretion to determine harmlessness sua sponte.
See United States v. Gonzales-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2005).
2 15-50195
In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Villarruel-Quintanilla’s
contention that his case should be assigned to a different judge on remand.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-50195