United States v. Angel Salinas-Mandujano

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50100

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01656-BEN-1

v. MEMORANDUM* ANGEL SALINAS-MANDUJANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Angel Salinas-Mandujano appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 75-month sentence and the 5-year term of supervised release

imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction

* 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salinas-Mandujano contends that the district court erred by denying his

request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. 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 government’s arguments,

which the district court adopted, support the court’s conclusion that Salinas-

Mandujano did not show that, as compared to all possible co-participants in the

offense, he was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). Though the district court did not explicitly discuss

each of the Guideline factors, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), it was not required

to do so, particularly given that this was Salinas-Mandujano’s third sentencing

hearing before the same judge and each hearing primarily concerned the minor role

adjustment. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2018). The

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment. See United States v.

Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court may deny minor

role reduction even if some factors weigh in favor of granting it).

Salinas-Mandujano next contends that the district court procedurally erred

by failing to explain the term of supervised release adequately. We review for

plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2 19-50100 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record as a whole reflects the district

court’s reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines term of supervised release. See

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate

explanation may be inferred from the record as a whole).

AFFIRMED.

3 19-50100