United States v. Javier Durazo-Miranda

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: 22-50305
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50305

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:21-cr-02642-DMS-1 v.

JAVIER OMAR DURAZO-MIRANDA, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 9, 2024 Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY,** and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Javier Omar Durazo-Miranda appeals his sentence for conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Durazo-Miranda

pleaded guilty after selling more than 24 kilograms of methamphetamine to an

undercover agent. The district court applied a two-level enhancement for Durazo-

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. Miranda’s role as an organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), found him ineligible for

safety-valve relief, and sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment followed by

five years of supervised release. “We review the district court’s interpretation of the

Sentencing Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the

case for an abuse of discretion, and its factual findings for clear error.” United States

v. Hong, 938 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Vallejos, 742

F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir. 2014)). We affirm.

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding Durazo-Miranda was an

“organizer.” “[T]he term ‘organizer’ in § 3B1.1(c) applies to defendants who have

the ability and influence necessary to coordinate the activities of others to achieve

the desired result, whether or not they have a superior rank in a criminal hierarchy.”

United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2015). “[O]nly ‘some control,’

which could include ‘organizational responsibility,’ is necessary to apply the

enhancement.” United States v. Vinge, 85 F.4th 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting

United States v. Kabir, 51 F.4th 820, 826 (9th Cir. 2022)). Durazo-Miranda

coordinated multiple participants in the procurement and delivery of

methamphetamine. Durazo-Miranda directed the coconspirator to provide the

methamphetamine in exchange for the undercover agent’s payment. Another time,

the undercover agent met with Durazo-Miranda and a third party to discuss a drug

purchase, and at that meeting, Durazo-Miranda described his own role as facilitating

2 bicoastal and international drug distribution, explaining that he was a “coordinator”

for the operation. This evidence provided sufficient support for the district court’s

application of the role enhancement.

2. Because the district court did not err in determining that Durazo-Miranda

was an organizer pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), the district court properly found

him ineligible for safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(4).

AFFIRMED.