United States v. Melida Flores

471 F. App'x 654
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 8, 2012
Docket10-50498
StatusUnpublished

This text of 471 F. App'x 654 (United States v. Melida Flores) 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. Melida Flores, 471 F. App'x 654 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Melida Flores appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her *655 guilty-plea conviction for two counts of conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and eleven counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and (b)(l)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores contends that the district court erred by denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not commit clear error by concluding that Flores was not a minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006).

Flores also contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) because it did not make sufficient findings in support of its conclusion that a minor role adjustment was not warranted. The court’s statements were sufficient. See United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32 findings “need only state the court’s resolution of the disputed issue[ ]”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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. Dennis Evan Ingham
486 F.3d 1068 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Cantrell
433 F.3d 1269 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
471 F. App'x 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-melida-flores-ca9-2012.