United States v. David Barrera-Valdivia , 689 F. App'x 487 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50070
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02800-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID BARRERA-VALDIVIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
David Barrera-Valdivia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of a controlled substance, 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).
Barrera-Valdivia contends that the district court erred by failing to consider
the factors enumerated in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, see
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and explain why he was not entitled to a minor role
adjustment under those factors. The record reflects that the court considered
Barrera-Valdivia’s sentencing arguments concerning the five Guideline factors,
and asked questions regarding those arguments. Under these circumstances, it is
clear that the court considered the Guideline factors and their application to this
case. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
Moreover, the court’s reasons for denying a minor role adjustment are apparent
from the record. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50070