United States v. Jesus Figueroa ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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.
2 18-10488