United States v. Jose Gomez-Regin

422 F. App'x 598
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 17, 2011
Docket10-30151
StatusUnpublished

This text of 422 F. App'x 598 (United States v. Jose Gomez-Regin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jose Gomez-Regin, 422 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Gomez-Regin appeals from the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez-Regin contends the district court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether he had an aggravating role in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). The three-level increase in offense level resulting from the district court’s aggravating role determination is not “extremely disproportionate” and therefore does not warrant application of the clear and convincing evidence standard. See United States v. Johansson, 249 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir.2001) (finding a four-level increase to be not extremely disproportionate).

To the extent that Gomez-Regin contends the district court erred by applying the adjustment for his role as a manager or supervisor, the district court did not clearly err in light of evidence that Gomez-Regin supplied methamphetamine to some of his co-conspirators, determined who performed particular duties, and financed the initial purchase of methamphetamine. See United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2000) (three-level adjustment was proper where defendant used others to help him sell drugs).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. John Egge
223 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Carl Bradley Johansson
249 F.3d 848 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 F. App'x 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-gomez-regin-ca9-2011.