United States v. Maria Ayala-Esquer , 419 F. App'x 723 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10128
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02066-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MARIA AYALA-ESQUER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Ayala-Esquer appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following
her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and
*
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).
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1),
and 960(b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ayala-Esquer contends that the district court erred by failing to grant a
minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the
district court did not clearly err by denying an adjustment for minor role. See
United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing
standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating
that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor
participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds
for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).
Ayala-Esquer further contends that her sentence was substantively
unreasonable because the district court relied too heavily on the need to deter
others in justifying its sentence. However, the record indicates that the district
court carefully considered Ayala-Esquer’s individual circumstances in selecting the
below-Guidelines sentence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the
sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10128