United States v. Kannis Betancourt , 677 F. App'x 406 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50059
16-50066
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01303-LAB
v.
KANNIS BETANCOURT; DULCE MEMORANDUM*
GIANNA MEDSENIA BRITO,
Defendants-Appellants,
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.
In these companion appeals, Kannis Betancourt and Dulce Gianna Medsenia
Brito appeal the 36-month sentences imposed following their guilty-plea
*
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).
convictions for making false statements to federal officers, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appellants contend that the district court violated their due process rights by
failing to apply the clear and convincing standard of proof to its finding that they
knew there were drugs in the car. This argument fails because the record reflects
that the court expressly declined to find that the defendants knowingly imported
drugs. Instead, the court stated that it was foreseeable to both appellants, based on
their admitted belief that they were smuggling drug proceeds, that the car might
contain drugs. Contrary to appellants’ argument, this was a reasonable inference
from the record, given their admissions and the circumstances of the offense.
Thus, the court did not violate appellants’ due process rights in imposing their
sentences. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir.
2009) (due process violated only when the sentencing court relies on evidence that
“lacks some minimal indicium of reliability” (internal quotations omitted)).
Moreover, the court’s remaining inferences, including that appellants were
likely attempting to avoid detection when crossing the border, were not clearly
erroneous, given their admissions regarding the purpose of their crossing. See
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly
erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”).
2 16-50059 & 16-50066
Finally, appellants contend that their sentences are substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the above-
Guidelines sentences in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including the appellants’ admission that they committed the
offense in the course of their work on behalf of a drug-trafficking organization.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-50059 & 16-50066