United States v. Manuel Acosta-Lopez ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 14 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-50210
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:18-cr-05343-LAB-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MANUEL ACOSTA-LOPEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 6, 2020**
    Before:      BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
    Manuel Acosta-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 90-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
    importation of methamphetamine, 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 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).
    Acosta-Lopez contends that the district court erroneously denied his request
    for a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s
    interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its
    application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States
    v. Gasca-Ruiz, 
    852 F.3d 1167
    , 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Acosta-
    Lopez’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly considered the
    factors listed in the commentary to the minor-role Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
    cmt. n.3(C), identified other likely participants in the scheme, and assessed
    whether Acosta-Lopez was “substantially less culpable than the average
    participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). The court did not clearly err in any of
    its factual findings, or abuse its discretion by concluding that Acosta-Lopez was
    not entitled to a minor-role reduction. See United States v. Diaz, 
    884 F.3d 911
    ,
    916 (9th Cir. 2018).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     19-50210
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-50210

Filed Date: 5/14/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/14/2020