United States v. Joel Garcia-Cervantes

553 F. App'x 716

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Joel Filemon Garcia-Cervantes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 192-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Garcia-Cervantes argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). Because the gun was found in close proximity to ammunition and an electronic scale, the district court did not clearly err when it concluded that the weapon was connected with the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n. 11(A); United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 714-15 (9th Cir.1998).

Garcia-Cervantes also contends that the district court erred by applying a three-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). We need not resolve the intracircuit conflict regarding the applicable standard of review, see United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 908 (9th Cir.2008), because Garcia-Cervantes’s claim fails under any standard. The record reflects that Garcia-Cervantes “exercised some control over others involved in commission of the offense contention.” United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation omitted).

Gareia-Cervantes finally contends that the district court failed to address his objections to the weapon and role enhancements, making it impossible to determine the basis for the court’s sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record is sufficient for appellate review and reflects that the district court considered Garcia-Cervantes’s challenges to the enhancements and rejected them. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.