United States v. Yadira Ruiz-Burandt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50123
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03553-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
YADIRA ELIZABETH RUIZ-BURANDT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Yadira Elizabeth Ruiz-Burandt appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon remand following her guilty-
plea conviction for importation of cocaine and methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
*
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).
affirm.
Ruiz-Burandt contends that the district court misapplied the minor role
Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, by inventing a hypothetical “average participant” and
defining that participant in such a way as to categorically preclude a minor role
adjustment for all drug couriers. We review the district court’s interpretation of
the Guidelines de novo, and its 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).
The record reflects that the district court acknowledged its obligation to
compare Ruiz-Burandt to known and likely co-participants in the offense and
conducted that comparison. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519,
523 (9th Cir. 2016). Having done so, the court concluded, based on the facts of
this particular case, that Ruiz-Burandt was not “substantially less culpable than the
average participant in the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A).
Contrary to Ruiz-Burandt’s argument, nothing in the record suggests that the
court’s approach to the minor role determination resulted in a categorical exclusion
of drug couriers from eligibility for an adjustment. The court applied the correct
legal standard and, in light of the totality of the circumstances, did not abuse its
discretion by denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50123