United States v. Arnulfo Moroyoqui-Rodriguez ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10481
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:16-cr-01919-JAS-BGM-1
v.
ARNULFO MOROYOQUI-RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2019**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Arnulfo Moroyoqui-Rodriguez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
possess 50 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession of 50 kilograms or more of marijuana of with intent
to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant
*
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).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
1. The government submitted sufficient evidence to identify Moroyoqui-
Rodriguez as the person who committed the offenses. See United States v.
Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1490 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Identification can be inferred from
all the facts and circumstances that are in evidence.”). The jury saw a video of an
interview conducted by a border agent shortly after Moroyoqui-Rodriguez’s arrest,
during which Moroyoqui-Rodriguez stated his name, his date of birth, and place of
birth; that information was identical (with the exception of a minor discrepancy in
the spelling of the name) with information recorded independently by the arresting
officer. The agent also testified at trial that Moroyoqui-Rodriguez was the person
he interviewed. During the interview, Moroyoqui-Rodriguez admitted that he was
part of a group that was smuggling marijuana into the United States. Another border
agent testified at trial that agents arrested Moroyoqui-Rodriguez after he entered the
country and seized marijuana at the scene of his arrest.
2. The district court did not err in attributing to Moroyoqui-Rodriguez the total
amount of drugs seized, even though the marijuana had been physically carried by
his co-conspirators. “In determining for purposes of sentencing the quantity of drugs
for which a conspirator will be held responsible, the district court is required to
determine the quantity of drugs the conspirator reasonably foresaw or which fell
within the scope of his particular agreement with the conspirators.” United States v.
2
Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal alteration omitted). Moroyoqui-
Rodriguez admitted that he was carrying food for the group and knew that others
were carrying marijuana. Thus, there was an ample basis for the court to conclude
that the conspirators “coordinated their importation effort” and “likely aided each
other.” United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); cf. United
States v. Palafox-Mazon, 198 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In cases involving
a group of marijuana backpackers where the facts escape easy categorization, a
sentencing judge may determine whether the offense is more appropriately viewed
as one jointly undertaken or not.”) (internal quotations omitted).
3. The district court did not err in declining to apply a minor role adjustment
under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). An “adjustment under § 3B1.2 is available only if the
defendant was ‘substantially’ less culpable than his or her co-participants.” United
States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v.
Johnson, 297 F.3d 845, 874 & n.37 (9th Cir. 2002)). The district court reasonably
concluded that Moroyoqui-Rodriguez and the other members of the group were
“similarly situated in terms of what they’re doing and their importance to the
organization or to the criminal endeavor.”
AFFIRMED.
3