United States v. Julian Juarez , 693 F. App'x 560 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50317
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02048-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JULIAN JUAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Julian Juarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 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).
Juarez contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a
minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court did not
adequately consider all of the factors contained in the commentary to the
Guideline, and failed to compare him to all of his co-participants in the offense.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th
Cir. 2016), we conclude that Juarez’s claims fail. The record reflects that the court
invited comment at the sentencing hearing on each of the five factors and properly
considered those factors, as well as the totality of the circumstances, before
concluding that Juarez was not “substantially less culpable than the average
participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Moreover, the court compared
Juarez to his named co-participants in the offense and considered other possible
participants in the overall scheme. Finally, contrary to Juarez’s claim, the court
did not apply this court’s precedent in a way that conflicts with the minor role
Guideline. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 (because the five factors are non-
exhaustive, “a district court may also consider other reasons for granting or
denying a minor role reduction”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50317