United States v. Michael Wright

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10062
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:15-cr-00171-DKW-1
v.
MICHAEL STEVEN WRIGHT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Wright appeals the district court’s sentence following his guilty
plea for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
1. The record does not support Wright’s argument that the district court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
plainly erred by holding him responsible for the conduct of another. Wright
personally possessed with intent to distribute the package containing
methamphetamine, and therefore the district court’s use of methamphetamine to set
Wright’s guideline range merely held him responsible for his own conduct. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1) (defining scope of relevant conduct for which a defendant
may be held responsible); see also United States v. Salazar, 5 F.3d 445, 446 (9th
Cir. 1993) (finding a defendant who helped to import drugs personally responsible
for the type and quantity of drugs actually imported, even when he claimed that he
had been misled as to drug type).
2. The district court correctly used methamphetamine (instead of
marijuana) to calculate Wright’s sentencing guideline range, despite the fact that
Wright thought the package contained marijuana. Unlike drug type and quantity, a
defendant’s knowledge of drug type and quantity is not a fact that must be admitted
or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013,
1019 (9th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Soto-Zuniga, 837 F.3d 992, 1004–
05 (9th Cir. 2016).
AFFIRMED.
2