United States v. Sergio Venegas-martin Del Camp

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Sergio Venegas-martin Del Camp

375 F. App'x 786

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 2010

Docket09-50012

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 375 F. App'x 786 (United States v. Sergio Venegas-martin Del Camp) 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. Sergio Venegas-martin Del Camp, 375 F. App'x 786 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Venegas-Martin Del Campo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Venegas-Martin Del Campo contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was merely a courier of the drugs involved. The record reflects that Venegas-Martin Del Campo knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000), and planned on accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006).

Further, the district court did not misapply the guidelines because Venegas-Martin Del Campo failed to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment. See Hursh, 217 F.3d at 770; Davis, 36 F.3d at 1437.

Venegas-Martin Del Campo also contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed to apply the parsimony principle; (2) created an unwarranted sentencing disparity among drug importation cases; and (3) based its sentence on a clearly erroneous fact. The record shows that the district court did not procedurally err and that Venegas-Martin Del Campo’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Venegas-Martin Del Campo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Venegas-Martin Del Campo contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was merely a courier of the drugs involved. The record reflects that Venegas-Martin Del Campo knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000), and planned on accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006).

Further, the district court did not misapply the guidelines because Venegas-Martin Del Campo failed to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment. See Hursh, 217 F.3d at 770; Davis, 36 F.3d at 1437.

Venegas-Martin Del Campo also contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed to apply the parsimony principle; (2) created an unwarranted sentencing disparity among drug importation cases; and (3) based its sentence on a clearly erroneous fact. The record shows that the district court did not procedurally err and that Venegas-Martin Del Campo’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 F. App'x 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sergio-venegas-martin-del-camp-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack