United States v. Roberto Rivera Casanova , 671 F. App'x 594 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50180
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00312-L
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERTO CARLOS RIVERA
CASANOVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Carlos Rivera Casanova appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 132-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea
conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952
*
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).
and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Rivera Casanova contends the district court erred in denying his third
request to substitute counsel. Applying this court’s three-factor test, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Mendez-
Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). Even if Rivera Casanova’s request
was timely, the court’s inquiry was adequate in light of its history with Rivera
Casanova. See id. at 942-43. Moreover, given that the purported conflict between
Rivera Casanova and his counsel was similar in nature to the conflicts Rivera
Casanova had experienced with his previous attorneys, the court reasonably denied
Rivera Casanova’s request for new counsel. See id. at 944 (“[T]he fact that this
was the same breakdown in communications that had occurred with his previous
lawyer is significant. . . . If [defendant] had received other counsel, it is likely that
the same conflicts would have arisen.”).
Rivera Casanova also argues that the district court erred in denying a minor
role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. After Rivera
Casanova was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued
Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the
minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct
appeal. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).
2 15-50180
The Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors a court “should consider” in
determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt.
n.3(C) (2015). We are satisfied that the district court’s stated rationale for
rejecting Rivera Casanova’s request for a reduction remains adequate under the
revised commentary. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court
did not clearly err in determining that Rivera Casanova failed to prove that he was
entitled to the adjustment. United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th
Cir. 2006) (setting forth standing of review).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-50180