United States v. Violeta Cervera-Lorna , 405 F. App'x 258 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 13 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-50569
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01605-LAB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    VIOLETA CERVERA-LORNA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 6, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Violeta Cervera-Lorna appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed
    following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Cervera-Lorna contends that the district court erred by denying her request
    for a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district
    court did not clearly err by denying Cervera-Lorna’s request for a downward
    adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 
    433 F.3d 1269
    , 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2006);
    see also United States v. Hursh, 
    217 F.3d 761
    , 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (the fact that a
    defendant acted as a courier does not mean his role was minor).
    Cervera-Lorna also contends that the district court’s denial of a minor role
    adjustment created a drastic sentencing disparity between her and similarly situated
    defendants. This argument is unpersuasive. In any event, the record reflects that
    the district court specifically granted a downward variance in order to avoid
    sentencing disparities with similarly situated defendants, in accordance with 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(6).
    The government’s request to strike opposing counsel’s declaration is denied
    as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     09-50569
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-50569

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 258

Judges: Goodwin, Rymer, Graber

Filed Date: 12/13/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024