United States v. Jesus Figueroa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10488

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00214-SPL-1

v. MEMORANDUM* JESUS JAIME FIGUEROA, AKA Jesus Jamie Figueroa,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Jaime Figueroa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance,

* 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 aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Figueroa contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minimal role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). We review the district court’s 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). Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that Figueroa was entrusted to transport and deliver a significant amount of cocaine, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, while Figueroa qualified for a minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), he was not “plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of [the] group.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.4; see also United States v. Awad, 371 F.3d 583, 591 (9th Cir. 2004) (minimal role reduction restricted to cases presenting exceptional circumstances).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

[2] 18-10488