United States v. Jose Cebreros-Sanchez ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 2 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10469
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cr-01202-DJH-1
v.
JOSE RAMON CEBREROS-SANCHEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 14, 2020
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,** District
Judge.
Jose Ramon Cebreros-Sanchez appeals his 360-month sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine between July 20
and August 3, 2016, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
between July 9 and August 3, 2016. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case,
we recite only those necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.
1. The district court did not err by including as relevant conduct the
transaction involving four pounds of methamphetamine that Cebreros-Sanchez and
his co-conspirator discussed on the July 27 wiretap. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c); see
also id. § 1B1.3. The July 27 transaction was an act “committed . . . by the
defendant,” id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), that occurred “during the commission of the
offense of conviction,” id. § 1B1.3(a)(1), and thus was properly included as
relevant conduct to determine Cebreros-Sanchez’s base offense level.1
2. The district court did not err by applying the three-level enhancement
for Cebreros-Sanchez’s aggravated role as a manager or supervisor. U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(b). The record evidence shows that, at a minimum, Cebreros-Sanchez
exercised control over his brother by instructing him to act as a courier to deliver
methamphetamine to Cebreros-Sanchez’s co-conspirators and other buyers, and
determined the amount of money his brother would receive for doing so. See
1
We need not decide whether the district court properly included the
four pounds from the September 10 transaction as relevant conduct in light of
defense counsel’s concession at oral argument that the record in this case does not
show that those four pounds change the outcome.
2
United States v. Gagarin, 950 F.3d 596, 606 (9th Cir. 2020); United States v.
Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 908–09 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
3